MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039520251 · doi:10.7202/1028836ar

Étude comparée de quatre logiciels de gestion de références bibliographiques libres ou gratuits

2015· article· fr· W2039520251 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gérald Kembellec, Claire Scopsi

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article résulte d’une réflexion sur les outils de gestion de références bibliographiques, particulièrement ceux proposés sous une forme libre ou gratuite. Depuis 2007, l’interaction des outils de rédaction avec les éditeurs bibliographiques évolue rapidement, mais par le passé, les logiciels libres ont pu souffrir de la comparaison en termes d’ergonomie ou d’usage avec l’offre propriétaire. Ce panorama fonctionnel, et technique approfondi des solutions libres ou gratuites actuelles résulte de la comparaison des logiciels JabRef, Mendeley Desktop, BibDesk et Zotero menée en janvier 2012 par deux enseignants chercheurs au sein de l’Institut national français des techniques de la documentation (INTD).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0280.041
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.259
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.126 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDocumentation et bibliothèquesSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207