MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945705835 · doi:10.7202/1058719ar

Usage et diffusion des revues savantes québécoises en sciences sociales et humaines : analyse des téléchargements de la plateforme Érudit

2019· article· fr· W2945705835 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sarah Cameron-Pesant

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches sociographiques · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude exploratoire s’intéresse à la consultation des revues savantes québécoises en sciences sociales et humaines diffusées par la plateforme Érudit. Basée sur l’analyse de 39 437 659 téléchargements de 2010 à 2015, elle vise d’abord à fournir un portrait de l’usage 1 des articles de revues savantes diffusés par Érudit en fonction des disciplines et de la provenance des téléchargements, puis à évaluer l’effet des politiques de libre accès sur les téléchargements dont elles bénéficient. Les résultats obtenus démontrent l’importance des revues nationales pour les sciences sociales et humaines, ainsi que l’effet positif du libre accès sur la diffusion des connaissances, tant au Canada qu’à l’étranger.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.111
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1110.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0330.091
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.620
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.029 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches sociographiquesSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207