Les techniques de la documentation : un programme de formation collégiale en évolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Afin de maintenir la pertinence des contenus enseignés et d’assurer l’adéquation aux besoins du marché du travail, un projet d’actualisation locale du programme Techniques de la documentation a été lancé en 2014 au Collège de Maisonneuve. Dans le cadre de ce projet, le département a identifié plusieurs défis. Ces défis s’articulent autour de sept grands axes : le traitement documentaire, les services au public, la gestion des documents administratifs, les systèmes documentaires informatisés, la gestion de projet, les attitudes professionnelles et les stages. Cet article propose un survol général de ces défis et dresse un portrait de la réalité du programme Techniques de la documentation. Il contribue également à une meilleure compréhension des compétences attendues du futur technicien en documentation.
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 | 0.027 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".