Exploring New (Digital) Publishing Practices with *Le Pressoir*
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As is well known, scientific publishing is a complex activity, and many constraints must be taken into account in order to address a range of issues, be they the structuration of the text, the inclusion of a critical apparatus, the sharing of texts during the revision and editing phases, and the dissemination of the final version via multiple platforms. Existing publishing chains allow for the management of texts, their production, editing and publication; they are systems that take these parameters into account by default. However, they remain dependent on specific software that is generally not well adapted to scientific publishing, or on technical infrastructures that are difficult to maintain and to use by SSH researchers, or that do not allow for experimentation and necessary rethinking on new editorial and epistemological models. What if, by modifying the publishing chains from more singular technical approaches, it is possible to consider new publishing practices? It is about rethinking the way books are edited and published through the editing of books in a university publisher series ("Parcours numériques" at the Presse de l’Université de Montréal). Several principles are adopted to reconfigure the publishing chain: multimodal publishing, modular factory, minimal computing and progressive enhancement. Furthermore, it is about what was adapted for a new publishing experiment (Les Ateliers de [sens public]) along the way.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.047 | 0.132 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it