Le Parlement « rapaillé » : la méthodologie de la reconstitution des débats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entrepris dans les années 1970, le programme de reconstitution des débats parlementaires québécois antérieurs à 1963 est maintenant une réalité. Au fil des années, une équipe d'historiens de la Bibliothèque de l'Assemblée nationale du Québec a mis au point une méthode originale, adaptée à ce type de restauration forcément partielle d'une source écrite. Le nombre et la variété des sources, la diversité des styles, leur connotation politique, la sélection et les liens syntaxiques pour produire un texte cohérent et lisible ont nécessité une approche critique et une grande rigueur méthodologique. Arrivé à terme plus de 30 ans après son ouverture, le chantier de la reconstitution des débats représente une véritable aventure historiographique.
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 | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".