MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W31890888 · doi:10.7202/1030169ar

Une méthode pour l’évaluation de sites Web

2015· article· fr· W31890888 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ginette Rouleau, James M. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb visibility and informetrics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalBibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValuation (finance)Political scienceHumanitiesBusinessArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

De plus en plus, la diffusion des archives se fait électroniquement et plus spécifiquement sur le Web. Or le design des sites et des interfaces est souvent inadéquat. Il ne tient pas compte, notamment, de la diversité des styles d’interaction des utilisateurs. Malheureusement, le design itératif, dans lequel les utilisateurs sont activement impliqués et mis à contribution, est encore très rare. Les auteurs présentent les résultats d’un projet d’évaluation du site ArchivaNet des Archives nationales du Canada. Ils précisent la méthodologie d’évaluation utilisée dans ce projet et discutent les critères d’évaluation retenus.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0070.026
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDocumentation et bibliothèquesSame topicWeb visibility and informetricsFrench-language works237,207