Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le dossier est souvent définit par son objet (dossier de subvention, dossier de patient, dossier de presse) sans que l'on s'appesantisse davantage sur ce que recouvre la notion de dossier, ce qu'elle sous-entend, à quoi elle fait référence.Ce numéro de Document numérique sur la numérisation de dossiers papier et la production de dossiers électroniques est une occasion d'essayer de définir ce qu'est un dossier et d'observer si le changement de support affecte le contenu du dossier.ABSTRACT.What we call « dossier » in French (in English whether file or folder or record) is usually defined through the subject it refers to (financial file, medical record, clipping file…), and the meaning of the very word « dossier » is not further explained; the reason of using this word instead of another is not so clear.This issue of Document numérique about electronic files/records, both digitalized paper documents and native electronic documents, seems an opportunity to precise what a « dossier » supposed to be and if changing the medium from paper to electronic means also changing structure and content.
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 | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".