Le nouveau monde de la communication savante : réactions des bibliothécaires de l’Université de Moncton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À la suite de la parution en octobre 1996 du rapport du groupe de travail de l’AUCC et de l’ABRC/CARL sur les bibliothèques universitaires et la communication savante, intitulé Le nouveau monde de la communication savante : les défis et les choix du Canada, le Sénat académique de l’Université de Moncton invitait les bibliothécaires de l’institution à examiner le contenu du rapport en vue de recommander des actions appropriées pouvant s’appliquer aux bibliothèques du réseau. Le rapport remis au Sénat académique au début de l’année 1997 reflète les réflexions, commentaires et suggestions de l’ensemble des bibliothécaires des trois constituantes de l’Université en ce qui concerne les recommandations ayant un impact sur les bibliothèques universitaires. Nul doute que les nouvelles technologies de l’information et des communications posent des défis intéressants aux bibliothèques universitaires qui devront se redéfinir en tenant compte des nouvelles façons de gérer les ressources documentaires et de livrer les services aux usagers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".