MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915984139 · doi:10.7202/1055394ar

Services au public et services techniques : conflit ou complémentarité ?

2019· article· fr· W2915984139 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hélène Patry, Pâquerette Ranger

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophyEthnologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Il existe un certain clivage entre le personnel des services au public et celui des services techniques. Ceci provoque de nombreuses difficultés au niveau des relations de travail influant sur la diffusion de l’information. Les auteurs cernent les principaux problèmes entre ces deux groupes : complexe d’infériorité de l’un envers l’autre groupe par rapport à la nature du travail effectué, instruments de repérage de l’information inadaptés aux besoins de l’usager, etc. Puis ils élaborent des éléments de solution à court, long et très long terme dont le principal sera sans conteste l’automatisation des services.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
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 score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0150.026
Science and technology studies0.0070.039
Scholarly communication0.0340.030
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.387 · 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 topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207