MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106772361 · doi:10.3917/i2d.202.0036

Les pratiques éditoriales à l’ADBS

2020· article· fr· W3106772361 on OpenAlex
Danielle Dufour-Coppolani

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueI2D - Information données & documents · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dès sa genèse, l’ Association des professionnels de l’information et de la documentation a développé une, ou plutôt des pratiques éditoriales. Adossées aux innovations technologiques et aux mutations de la fonction documentaire, ces pratiques s’inscrivent dans une logique de partage, de communication et de transfert de savoirs ; elles s’appuient sur des savoir-faire et des processus professionnels. Le produit phare de l’ADBS, la revue I2D, en témoigne. Objectifs : répondre au mieux aux préoccupations de ses adhérents, capitaliser, apporter de la valeur ajoutée. Entre production (via des ouvrages et des revues), gestion et transformation de contenus (via le site, les réseaux, les groupes participatifs), et formations (via les stages), l’ADBS explore de vastes territoires éditoriaux. Pour autant, elle ne cesse de se questionner et de s’adapter, dans un modèle de work in process .

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.

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 score0.920
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0070.042
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.093 · 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