Bibliographic record
Abstract
On retrouve dans cet article les résultats d'un sondage national sur la personnalité des archivistes au Canada, réalisé en 1998 en utilisant le test de Keirsey (Keirsey Temperament Sorter).Les tests et les types de personnalité sont analysés dans le but de fournir le contexte global du sondage canadien, qui fut réalisé afin de faire des parallèles avec des études similaires effectuées aux États-Unis et en Australie.Les résultats canadiens sont présentés sous forme de tableaux et des comparaisons sont faites avec le portrait des types de personnalité de la population mondiale tel qu'établi par des études faites dans plusieurs pays et accessibles électroniquement.Ce sondage sur la personnalité des archivistes est relié à l'enquête démographique plus large sur les archivistes canadiens dont il forme une partie.ABSTRACT This article reports the results of a national survey on the temperament of archivists in Canada done in 1998 using the Keirsey Temperament Sorter.Temperament testing and temperament types are discussed in order to provide a wider context for the Canadian survey, which was done to parallel similar surveys of archivists in the United States and Australia.Canadian results are presented in tables and comparisons are made to the temperament profile of a world population drawn from a number of countries and available electronically.The temperament typing survey is related to the larger demographic survey of Canadian archivists of which it was one part.This paper continues the report of a national survey of archivists in Canada, undertaken between April and June 1998, by presenting the results of the temperament sorter. 1 "Canadian Archivists: What Types of People are They?" * The Faculty of Information Studies of the University of Toronto awarded funds from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council general research grant to support the research.Stephen Francom prepared the frequencies and the tables.I am grateful for their help. 1 "A Look at a Bigger Picture: The Demographic Profile of Archivists in Canada Based on a National Survey" was published in Archivaria 49 (Spring 2000), pp.20-52.A preliminary report of the temperament data was delivered orally at the Association of Canadian Archivists' meetings in Halifax, Nova Scotia, June 1998.At the same session, Ann Pederson presented a preliminary report on the characteristics of the archivists working in Australia and Charles Schultz reported on his administration of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter to a sub-set of
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".