MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2200114388 · doi:10.7202/1029168ar

Que pensent les élus municipaux québécois des missions des bibliothèques publiques ?

2015· article· fr· W2200114388 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dominique Gazo

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Cultural and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article présente les résultats d’une étude menée dans le cadre d’un projet de recherche doctoral. Douze élus municipaux québécois ont été interrogés sur les missions des bibliothèques publiques. Ils s’expriment en tant qu’élu, individu ou usager pour évoquer une bibliothèque qui paraît passive et traditionnelle. Ces élus ne parviennent pas à imaginer une bibliothèque autre que celle qu’ils connaissent présentement et qui les satisfait généralement. Malgré ses limites concernant surtout les valeurs, les publics, le personnel et la variété des services offerts, le discours des élus ressemble étrangement au discours du public et converge avec celui des professionnels.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.024
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designNot applicable
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDocumentation et bibliothèquesSame topicDiverse Cultural and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207