MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917601773 · doi:10.7202/1055247ar

L’indexation automatique : état de la question et perspectives d’avenir

2019· article· fr· W2917601773 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yves Courrier

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’auteur décrit d’abord le principe de l’édition automatique d’index, en particulier les index permutés et le système PRECIS, et souligne les tendances actuelles. Il expose ensuite les diverses méthodes utilisées pour extraire automatiquement les mots-clés : les méthodes statistiques et les méthodes linguistiques. Pour ces dernières, il explicite les méthodes syntaxiques et les méthodes sémantiques. Il montre enfin que la recherche en intelligence artificielle est pertinente pour l’indexation automatique mais qu’elle n’est pas encore assez développée pour apporter des résultats substantiels.

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)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.014
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0170.023
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.010

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.334 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDocumentation et bibliothèquesSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207