MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2496878882 · doi:10.7202/1051043ar

La formation documentaire dans les collèges de la région de Montréal

2018· article· fr· W2496878882 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Linda Pagé, Josée Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsInstitut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecologyArtMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En 1976, une étude était réalisée sur les méthodes utilisées pour la formation documentaire dans les bibliothèques collégiales du Québec. Douze ans plus tard, ces méthodes ont-elles évolué et permettent-elles aux jeunes d’acquérir des habiletés de recherche documentaire ? Après un survol historique des diverses méthodes de formation documentaire utilisées dans les bibliothèques académiques, les auteures présentent les résultats de l’enquête qu’elles ont menée auprès des responsables de douze bibliothèques collégiales de la région de Montréal afin d’identifier les activités et méthodes de formation documentaire actuellement utilisées, d’en évaluer le niveau et de mesurer les améliorations réalisées ou souhaitées.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0190.056
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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