Continuité, stabilité, identité : une analyse du contenu de Documentation et bibliothèques, 1973-2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article évoque quelques événements marquants de l’histoire de Documentation et bibliothèques (DB). Il présente ensuite les grandes thématiques qui ont été traitées dans des articles ou des chroniques depuis 1973, dresse un portrait des auteurs et propose quelques réflexions sur l’avenir de la revue. Entre 1973 et 2013, 668 articles et 232 chroniques ont été publiés, répartis dans 163 numéros. Les articles de réflexion et les articles descriptifs constituent 68 % du contenu de la revue. Les thèmes les plus fréquemment abordés sont les milieux, les activités et les services. Six cent soixante-sept auteurs distincts, Québécois dans une proportion de 80 %, ont publié au moins un article dans DB entre 1973 et 2013. La revue est stable et a atteint le stade de la maturité, mais elle doit accroître sa visibilité pour affirmer son identité et assurer sa survie.
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 | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.086 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".