MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122162752 · doi:10.7202/1032814ar

Outils et méthodes d’évaluation continue de la formation

2015· article· fr· W2122162752 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Christine Dufour

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les institutions universitaires doivent implanter des mécanismes de suivi en continu de leurs programmes pour s’assurer de leur pertinence et pour répondre à différents besoins d’évaluation. Parmi les outils et les méthodes pouvant leur venir en aide se trouvent les tableaux de bord, pour centraliser et exploiter des indicateurs pertinents à ce suivi, la cartographie de programme, afin d’analyser la cohérence de ceux-ci, ainsi que les plans de cours, comme matière première à ce suivi. Après avoir présenté ces trois éléments, la méthodologie de l’École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’information (EBSI) de l’Université de Montréal est présentée pour en illustrer l’application.

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)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.202
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.202
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0180.019
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0200.008
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.007

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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDocumentation et bibliothèquesSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207