Services de coupures de presse dans les bibliothèques parlementaires du Canada : de l’imprimé à l’électronique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les journaux constituent depuis toujours une source d’information de première importance pour les parlementaires. La presse offre une réflexion critique de l’opinion publique en plus d’être un outil majeur de communication à l’égard des changements qui surviennent dans les politiques et les lois. La collecte et l’organisation de l’information destinée aux parlementaires constituent les deux volets d’un service essentiel fourni par les bibliothèques parlementaires établies ou en développement partout dans le monde. Le présent article offre un aperçu des services de presse fournis par les bibliothèques parlementaires du Canada, il décrit l’expérience de la province de l’Ontario en ce qui a trait aux services de presse électroniques et propose un certain nombre d’avenues qui doivent être examinées lors de la transition vers les services électroniques. Certaines orientations futures sont également abordées.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.002 |
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".