Pour une vision globale du développement des services de bibliothèques et de documentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Après avoir souligné le cloisonnement historique des diverses catégories de bibliothèques au Québec et souligné le développement récent d’une remise en cause de cet état de choses visant à une plus grande planification provinciale, l’auteur relie, par le biais d’un certain nombre de sources pertinentes, ce phénomène à des mouvements similaires apparus un peu partout à travers le monde — souvent sous l’impulsion de l’Unesco — et surtout aux États-Unis. Il s’attache en particulier, pour ce dernier pays, au rapport de la National Commission on Libraries and Information Science publié en 1975. De ces divers documents, l’auteur tire quelques principes généraux essentiels à la mise en oeuvre d’une véritable planification nationale et fait ressortir, dans le rapport de la Commission, la philosophie de base ainsi que les principales recommandations. Ces mouvements constituent une interrogation posée à la bibliothéconomie québécoise.
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 | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".