MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915234871 · doi:10.7202/1055659ar

Pour une analyse « marketing » de la bibliothèque

2019· article· fr· W2915234871 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jean-Marc Fontaine, Marie Brisebois-Mathieu

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le marketing n’est pas la publicité. Celle-ci n’est, en effet, qu’une des activités du marketing. En quoi consiste le marketing et, en particulier, le marketing social ? Peut-on espérer appliquer les « bienfaits » du marketing au domaine des bibliothèques ? Si oui, dans quelles conditions ? Une fois ses possibilités évaluées, il appert que les techniques du marketing demeurent applicables à la gestion d’une bibliothèque, mais à l’intérieur de limites relativement restreintes et dans le but d’« organiser » non plus le client, pratique courante dans le domaine publicitaire, mais plutôt l’administration.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.019
Science and technology studies0.0050.018
Scholarly communication0.0230.023
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.009

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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