MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2486028783 · doi:10.7202/1028595ar

Pour la documentation en entomologie : LCC ou DDC ?

2015· article· fr· W2486028783 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sophie Lessard

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les insectes, largement étudiés dans la documentation, occupent une place importante au sein des systèmes de classification de Dewey et de la Library of Congress. Bien que la classification de la Library of Congress (LCC) soit davantage développée en ce qui a trait à la taxinomie entomologique, l’arrangement de la classification Dewey (DDC) s’avère plus logique et plus conforme à la classification évolutive. DDC permet également un plus grand nombre de possibilités en ce qui concerne la distribution géographique des insectes et les différents aspects sous lesquels ils sont abordés.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0190.031
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0170.014
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.040

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDocumentation et bibliothèquesSame topicLepidoptera: Biology and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207