MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139508332 · doi:10.7202/1075708ar

L’archivistique est-elle une science expérimentale ?

2021· article· fr· W3139508332 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yann Potin, Clothilde Roullier

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le prolongement des journées d’étude intitulées L’archivistique est-elle une science ?, organisées par l’École nationale des chartes et l’Association des archivistes français à la Sorbonne en janvier 2003, les auteurs se proposent d’analyser la façon dont, ces dernières années, la recherche en archivistique tend, au gré d’initiatives diverses, à devenir expérimentale. Ils soutiennent l’idée que cette tendance leur semble bénéfique et ils l’encouragent dans leurs propres actions, à travers des expériences humaines et interinstitutionnelles. Ils rappellent d’ailleurs qu’Yves Pérotin, figure tutélaire du métier d’archiviste, avait, en 1961, non pas formulé une « théorie » des trois âges, mais proposé une forme d’expérimentation conceptuelle.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.033
Scholarly communication0.0150.015
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.170 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivesSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207