MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251714993 · doi:10.7202/1028544ar

Des bibliothèques pour un meilleur développement culturel au Québec

2015· article· fr· W4251714993 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDocumentation et bibliothèques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesRedactionArtPhilosophyPolitical scienceLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le Comité de rédaction de Documentation et bibliothèques publie le mémoire que le Conseil d’administration de l’ASTED a préparé et a fait parvenir à la Commission parlementaire sur la culture qui étudie les recommandations du Rapport Arpin. Il n’est habituel que la revue publie les « mémoires » préparés par l’Association. Mais il a semblé aux membres du Comité de rédaction que le sujet traité dans ce document revêtait une telle acuité qu’il était essentiel de le porter à la connaissance des membres de l’Association et des lecteurs de la revue.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0180.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDocumentation et bibliothèquesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207