MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082599140 · doi:10.7202/1071201ar

Du bénévolat au crowdsourcing

2020· article· fr· W3082599140 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Geneviève Proulx

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsBibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrowdsourcingHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alors que le bénévolat continue de faire partie du paysage habituel des bibliothèques, le crowdsourcing demeure une activité peu pratiquée et encore méconnue pour plusieurs d’entre elles. Pourtant, tout comme le bénévolat, le crowdsourcing encourage l’implication des citoyens dans leurs activités régulières et suscite leur intérêt pour l’engagement social. Cet article présente l’évolution de la participation citoyenne dans les bibliothèques, à travers la comparaison entre le bénévolat traditionnel et le crowdsourcing, et explore les différences facettes de ce dernier afin de favoriser une meilleure compréhension de son application et de ses bénéfices pour les milieux documentaires.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0280.061
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDocumentation et bibliothèquesSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207