MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995224191 · doi:10.4000/books.pum.1342

Revues savantes : quel avenir ?

2005· book-chapter· fr· W1995224191 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Pierssens

Bibliographic record

VenuePresses de l’Université de Montréal eBooks · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval European Literature and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

« Notre idée est que les revues en ligne actuelles constituent le point de passage entre les revues savantes d’hier et l’Internet savant de l’avenir. »Paolo D’Iorio et Nathalie Ferrand (2000-2001) Voici à peine plus de dix ans, les Cahiers de Paris VIII faisaient paraître, sous la direction de Béatrice Didier et Marie-Claire Ropars (1994), un excellent dossier intitulé « Revue et recherche ». Un seul article aborde – au conditionnel – un sujet alors encore incongru, du moins dans le contexte ...

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.020
Scholarly communication0.0140.014
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.151 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePresses de l’Université de Montréal eBooksSame topicMedieval European Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207