L’Index du Journal des débats, un outil essentiel depuis 1964
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis 1964, la Bibliothèque de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec produit un outil unique : l’Index du Journal des débats. Utilisé par diverses clientèles, il permet de repérer l’information relative aux délibérations parlementaires sous six facettes : les sujets, les participants, les projets de loi, les commissions, les mémoires et les témoignages. Tous les cahiers de séances, que ce soit en Chambre ou en commission parlementaire, sont analysés par l’équipe responsable de l’indexation. Cette dernière veille à l’uniformité des pratiques à l’aide d’outils et de logiciels spécialisés. De nombreux changements ont marqué l’Index du Journal des débats au fil des années et, à l’aube de son 60e anniversaire, l’équipe de l’indexation devra faire face à de nouveaux défis, comme l’avènement de l’intelligence artificielle.
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 | 0.011 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.045 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.009 |
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".