Bibliographic record
Abstract
RésuméNous évaluerons dans cet article deux moteurs de recherche cartographiques : Kartoo (pour 18 usagers) et Mapstan (pour 16 usagers). L’évaluation de ces outils consiste en l’analyse de l’influence du mode de présentation des informations sur les processus cognitifs mis en jeu par l’utilisateur dans l’activité de recherche d’informations sur Internet. Plus particulièrement, nous avons examiné les procédures d’utilisation des outils lorsque les participants étaient confrontés à une présentation visualisée des résultats et à une présentation classique des résultats (version html). Les résultats de l’analyse suggèrent que la version cartographique est coûteuse d’un point de vue cognitif et montrent par ailleurs que la définition de l’objectif de recherche (flou ou précis) influence les procédures d’utilisation des moteurs de recherche.
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 | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.213 | 0.074 |
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".