Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le catalogue en tant qu’outil de recherche offert au public fut conçu pour faciliter le repérage de ressources documentaires spécifiques à l’aide d’informations précises, telles que le titre et le nom de l’auteur. Or, le catalogue est de moins en moins pertinent aux yeux des chercheurs d’aujourd’hui ayant accès à de multiples outils en ligne plus conviviaux et dynamiques. Quelques bibliothèques tentent de regagner la faveur des chercheurs en réinventant le catalogue traditionnel pour qu’il soit plus visuel, interactif et convivial. Cet article décrit une nouvelle génération de catalogues de bibliothèques accessibles au public afin d’aider les institutions qui voudraient s’en inspirer. Il reprend, en l’enrichissant, le contenu d’une présentation faite au récent Colloque conjoint CBPQ/ASTED, tenu en mai 2008 à Montréal.
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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.173 | 0.145 |
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".