Éditorial sur le maintien du rayonnement de la psychologie canadienne dans l'étude du cerveau, du comportement et des sciences cognitives.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Je me rappelle d’avoir assiste, lors de stages en neurosciences en 1985, a une reunion ou, a la suite des coupures budgetaires annoncees, des chercheurs du Centre national de la recherche scientifique de Marseille devaient prendre des decisions sur les abonnements de revues scientifiques que la bibliotheque devait supprimer ou conserver. J’avais entendu le regrette Jean Requin exprimer de bons mots pour la Revue canadienne de psychologie, soulignant qu’elle ne coutait pas cher, qu’on y trouvait de tres bons articles et que c’etait une des rares revues serieuses a publier aussi en francais. J’etais bien entendu enchante d’entendre de bons mots, loin du pays, pour un produit scientifique canadien. La Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale (RCPE, depuis 1993), avait donc deja, en 1985, une longue tradition et une reputation d’excellence scienti
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 | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".