Will the <i>Annual Bibliography of France History</i> Survive the ‘New Technologies’ Turn?: A Last Attempt to Enter the Twenty-First Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the situation that a team of bibliographers has had to confront in the technological era that emerged in the last decade of the twentieth century. The scholarly publication at stake is the Annual Bibliography of France History, which comes from a long tradition originating in the late nineteenth century. Since the 1950s, a volume has been published each year, and each volume lists about twelve thousand references that pertain to works on the history of France from late antiquity to 1958. These references are classified among several indexes. Since 2000, several attempts to put that ‘native paper database’ online have been aborted. This article gives an account of the last attempt, which started in 2011, and shows that institutional problems, technical issues, and cultural questions are so deeply entangled together that we must embrace all those aspects in order to have a chance of success.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
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".