MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521026700 · doi:10.7202/1052575ar

Problèmes de droit d’auteur dans les bibliothèques

2018· article· fr· W2521026700 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jules Larivière

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuteur theoryHumanitiesPolitical scienceArtArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans ce deuxième article sur le droit d’auteur, l’auteur soulève certains problèmes auxquels doivent faire face les bibliothécaires dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions. Ainsi, la reproduction d’oeuvres protégées repose sur des notions floues comme « partie importante d’une oeuvre », « utilisation équitable », « étude privée et recherche ». À l’aube d’une révision de la loi actuelle, l’auteur explique enfin le rôle que seront appelées à jouer les sociétés de gestion de droits d’auteur dans le monde de la documentation.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0520.082
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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