Appréhender les usages d’une institution culturelle. Entretien avec Christophe Evans, responsable du service Études et recherche de la Bibliothèque publique d’information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet entretien avec Christophe Evans, sociologue, porte sur la possibilité pour les institutions culturelles de produire par elles-mêmes des connaissances sur leurs publics, à partir du cas singulier de la Bibliothèque publique d’information (Bpi) du Centre Pompidou. Cet établissement national de lecture publique situé au centre de Paris a été doté, dès sa création à la fin des années 1970, d’un service Études et recherche, dont Christophe Evans est aujourd’hui responsable. Ce service fait de la Bpi un lieu inédit d’expérimentation et d’observation des publics des bibliothèques, mais aussi de réflexion sur ce que signifie, pour une institution, tenter d’appréhender ses usagers. Observatoire in situ mobilisant plusieurs disciplines, il enrichit les savoirs en matière de pratiques de lecture et d’usages des bibliothèques autant qu’il démontre l’intérêt des sciences sociales pour l’action publique.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".