Les pratiques de publication des chercheurs : les revues savantes québécoises entre impact national et visibilité internationale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Québec dispose aujourd’hui d’une soixantaine de revues savantes dont la particularité est d’être concentrées dans les sciences sociales et humaines et les arts et lettres. Quelle est l’importance de ces revues pour les chercheurs, tant québécois qu’étrangers ? Comment se comparent-elles aux revues étrangères dans lesquelles les chercheurs québécois publient pourtant la majorité de leurs travaux ? L’article tente de répondre à ces questions à l’aide de deux sources de données. Premièrement, une enquête fut réalisée auprès des chercheurs à laquelle plus de 1 500 chercheurs ont répondu. Le but était de connaître les pratiques de lecture et d’écriture des chercheurs québécois et rechercher leur évaluation des revues québécoises. Deuxièmement, une banque de données a été établie donnant des informations sur les publications dans les revues québécoises.
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 | 0.026 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".