Les revues scientifiques en science de l’éducation: comment être singulier dans une offre plurielle?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le monde de la communication est un domaine en constante evolution, propulse notamment par les nombreuses avancees technologiques realisees dans ce domaine. En ce sens, les acteurs qui sont partie prenante de l’edition scientifique et les organisations qu’ils representent doivent, des lors, amorcer une reflexion sur les meilleurs moyens de diffusion et sur le transfert des connaissances issues de la recherche (CSE, 2016) dans un contexte de publication. L’objectif de cette communication est de faire emerger, de facon interactive, differentes perspectives a propos d’enjeux de publication. Pour ce faire, elle propose des discutants du monde de l’edition scientifique provenant de differents horizons qui presenteront des donnees experientielles. Les enjeux cibles visent (1) le transfert des connaissances issues de la recherche en education, (2) les imperatifs de la publication scientifique, plus precisement: la publication en libre acces (avantages et inconvenients), l’utilisation de facteur d’impact et le processus d’evaluation par les pairs. Cette communication a l’ambition d’initier la discussion sur ces enjeux et d’amener les participants a envisager des pistes de travail pour une diffusion optimale et perenne des initiatives de publication, et ce, tant de la recherche que de la pratique en education.
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 | 0.077 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.054 | 0.058 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
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".