De la Bibliothèque nationale à la Grande Bibliothèque du Québec : approches institutionnelles face aux défis contemporains de la communication, de la participation et de l’inclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’intéresse à l’évolution en contexte des activités programmées en bibliothèque comme stratégies communicationnelles. Dans une perspective de communication sociale, l’analyse qualitative en induction s’enracine dans le discours institutionnel que contient le corpus exhaustif des rapports annuels d’activités de 1968 à 2020 concernant la Bibliothèque nationale et la Grande Bibliothèque du Québec qui en est l’héritière. Une typologie met en lumière des différenciations structurantes entre des catégories d’activités programmées issues de trois périodes dans l’évolution de cet aspect sous-étudié de la dimension communicationnelle des bibliothèques publiques québécoises. Au fil des contextes et de leur complexification, nous distinguons les manifestations culturelles originales, les ensembles évènementiels d’envergure, la médiation et les ateliers en espace laboratoire. Une compréhension nuancée des approches institutionnelles qui sont par ailleurs le cadre d’innovations substantielles eu égard aux enjeux de la participation et de l’inclusion est développée.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".