MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470264738 · doi:10.7202/1029490ar

L’agir informationnel ou comment former l’homme de la société de l’information ?

2015· article· fr· W2470264738 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huguette Rigot

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Avec la révolution du numérique se pose de façon sensible et particulière la question de la formation des acteurs de la société d’information. Pour la première fois de leur histoire, les hommes se trouvent confrontés à une masse d’informations indifférenciées au niveau de leur production et de leur diffusion. Internet donne accès à des informations non spécifiées au préalable, non diffusées par des canaux spécialisés et dont le volume ne cesse de croître. Les produits culturels et scientifiques, validés, légitimés, côtoient des informations non vérifiées, aux sources incertaines voire anonymes, des informations de type commercial, pornographique, etc., c’est-à-dire tout document de type texte, son, image, accessible sur le réseau. Cela aboutit à une croissance d’information sans précédent, empruntant le même canal de diffusion et librement accessible à toute personne connectée sur le réseau. Pour la première fois, les individus connectés ont la possibilité d’être des acteurs informationnels jouant successivement ou simultanément les rôles d’émetteur, de médiateur et de récepteur.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.025
Scholarly communication0.0200.026
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.009

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.244 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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