Deux exemples de coopération entre bibliothèques et archives (Powerpoint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis dix ans, une reflexion de fond s'est engagee dans les deux professions sur le contenu de leurs missions dans un environnement transforme par Internet et le tout numerique. La place des bibliotheques dans la societe s'est en effet considerablement accrue, tandis que les publics des Archives se sont elargis et diversifies. Un accord a ete trouve sur les concepts de guichet unique et de reseau local, national et international, et il implique une convergence active entre bibliotheques, archives, musees et autres institutions culturelles. Le Canada et le Quebec ont choisi la voie de la fusion, Bibliotheque et Archives Canada (BAC) en 2004 et Bibliotheque et Archives nationales du Quebec (BAnQ) entre 2002 et 2006. Mais si l'analyse et l'inspiration sont communes, la mise en oeuvre et les modeles choisis sont distincts mais egalement interessants: la ou BAC a choisi l'integration des fonctions, BAnQ a prefere l'harmonisation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.005 |
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".