MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2249004299 · doi:10.7202/1030354ar

La formation documentaire dans les bibliothèques collégiales : état de la question et enquête

2015· article· fr· W2249004299 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Daniel Marquis

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsCégep de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La formation documentaire occupe une place importante dans les activités pédagogiques d’une bibliothèque collégiale. Notre étude présente un état de la question en définissant le concept de formation documentaire, en examinant rapidement les approches retenues depuis 1978 et en actualisant les données par une vaste enquête dans 44 bibliothèques collégiales. Présentée en septembre 2002 dans le cadre du 4 e forum des représentants de bibliothèques collégiales (RESDOC) et en octobre 2002 au Colloque du sous-comité des bibliothèques de la Conférence des recteurs et des principaux des universités du Québec (CREPUQ), cette étude brosse un tableau complet de la situation et identifie quelques perspectives d’avenir.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0520.148
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDocumentation et bibliothèquesSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207