MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524159226 · doi:10.7202/1033494ar

L’énoncé d’une politique : la force du développement des collections

2015· article· fr· W2524159226 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Louise Paquin

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Cultural and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tout bibliothécaire du milieu scolaire est confronté au développement des collections. Il n’est pas facile de trier parmi les demandes, de choisir entre les diverses publications en fonction des budgets. Aussi doit-il s’assigner une ligne de conduite. L’énoncé d’une politique de développement des collections est cet outil qui aide à faire des choix sensés. En découvrant ce qu’est une politique, quels sont les éléments qui la composent, le bibliothécaire scolaire fera sienne une façon efficace de développer une collection. Et surtout, il apprendra à développer une collection donnée en répondant à la mission et aux objectifs de la bibliothèque.

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)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0180.030
Scholarly communication0.0400.030
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
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 Cultural and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207