La formation documentaire dans les collèges de la région de Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".