MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917585555 · doi:10.7202/1055162ar

L’évaluation des services québécois d’information documentaire; plaidoyer pour une dose de réalisme

2019· article· fr· W2917585555 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Daniel Reicher

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValuation (finance)Political scienceHumanitiesLibrary scienceBusinessComputer scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’évaluation des services d’information documentaire se heurte à l’absence d’unités de mesure clairement définies. Pourtant, une évaluation doit être quantifiée pour que ses résultats soient utilisables. Après avoir souligné plusieurs écueils de l’évaluation qui rendent aléatoire l’étude de la satisfaction documentaire des usagers, l’auteur propose que cette difficulté soit résolue en mesurant la compétence des spécialistes en information documentaire plutôt que le contenu intellectuel ou physique des collections des services québécois d’information documentaire.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0210.010
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDocumentation et bibliothèquesSame topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207