Ressources humaines : du mode hiérarchique au mode transversal et participatif, les bibliothèques sont-elles prêtes au changement ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir de trois études de cas (Bibliothèque nationale suisse, Faculté des sciences de l’Université de Genève, Bibliothèques et Archives de la Ville de Lausanne), il m’a été possible d’expérimenter trois manières de conduire des équipes et des projets de services, et donc des changements. Plusieurs constats peuvent en être tirés : le management participatif est bénéfique pour conduire des projets et des équipes vers le succès ; la démarche projet est un plus pour construire des équipes solides ; le leadership peut être partagé en se fondant sur la confiance réciproque. Dépendant fortement du contexte de travail, des compétences à disposition et des orientations stratégiques prises, le management par projet et le management transversal sont de réelles opportunités de développement pour les équipes.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
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".