MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W248730608 · doi:10.7202/1029098ar

Bibliothécaires et chercheurs au service de l’usage documentaire : résultats, réflexions et perspectives d’une recherche-action synergique

2015· article· fr· W248730608 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fabrice Papy, Corinne Leblond

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse multidisciplinary academic research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le Visual...Catalog se présente comme un système de recherches d’informations bibliographiques (OPAC) de nouvelle génération qui complète l’offre des Systèmes Intégrés de Gestion de Bibliothèques (SIGB), à destination des usagers. Au-delà de l’artefact technologique, ce dispositif élaboré dans le cadre de recherches universitaires en Sciences Humaines et plus particulièrement en Sciences de l’Information, vise à améliorer la visibilité des collections des bibliothèques universitaires et augmenter l’autonomie des usagers. Cette démarche se nourrit de l’expertise des bibliothécaires en matière d’organisation des connaissances. Expérimenté à l’Université Paris 8 dans un premier temps, puis pleinement intégré au portail de l’Université d’Artois depuis 2006, le dispositif a progressivement revêtu les habits d’une recherche-action constructive où bibliothécaires et chercheurs oeuvrent ensemble, au service d’une amélioration significative des compétences documentaires des usagers. À l’aube de la bibliothèque 2.0, cet article évoque les impacts positifs des technologies numériques lorsqu’elles sont mises au service de la médiation documentaire au sein des bibliothèques universitaires.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.030
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.034
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.371
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDocumentation et bibliothèquesSame topicDiverse multidisciplinary academic researchFrench-language works237,207