La formation à l’information ou le besoin de revoir le concept de formation documentaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les bibliothèques universitaires sont actives en formation des usagers depuis plus de 30 ans. Ce que l’on a appelé « formation documentaire » a connu des interprétations extrêmement variées, allant de la simple visite de la bibliothèque à des cours structurés et crédités obligatoires dans le cursus de l’étudiant d’une discipline donnée. Ces interventions avaient le but commun de mieux habiliter l’étudiant à assumer son métier d’étudiant en lui faisant découvrir et utiliser un certain nombre d’outils documentaires susceptibles de lui permettre de réaliser des études et des recherches de meilleure qualité. Cette vision est caduque. L’utilisation performante de l’information est désormais considérée comme une condition de survie pour les individus et les organisations. Les apprentissages sous-jacents à une utilisation efficace de l’information en milieu professionnel imposent une redéfinition des concepts de base et des finalités poursuivies en formation documentaire.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".