MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1886588861 · doi:10.7202/1028901ar

Les normes de description des documents d’archives : vers l’accès à l’information patrimoniale

2015· article· fr· W1886588861 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Louise Gagnon-Arguin

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesLibrary scienceArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les Règles de description des documents d’archives (RDDA) sont des normes canadiennes destinées à permettre le catalogage des documents d’archives. Développées par des professionnels oeuvrant dans divers milieux archivistiques, elles visent à favoriser la diffusion des fonds d’archives en vue d’une meilleure utilisation pour la recherche de cette source documentaire unique. Cet article vise à faire connaître les RDDA en présentant les différentes étapes de leur réalisation, les principes de base et la structure des règles elles-mêmes ainsi que les réalisations qu’a permis leur application et ce, dans le contexte québécois et canadien.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0060.016
Scholarly communication0.0230.016
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDocumentation et bibliothèquesSame topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207