Réflexions sur le patrimoine documentaire publié : le cas des collections de la Bibliothèque nationale à BAnQ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les bibliothécaires chargés de rendre accessible et de valoriser le patrimoine documentaire publié font face à de nombreux enjeux. Parmi ceux-ci, on peut signaler le manque de formation et de publications sur le sujet, la relative indifférence du public et des décideurs devant ce patrimoine plutôt méconnu, la nécessité de concilier les missions de conservation et de diffusion de ces collections, l’avènement du numérique qui dématérialise le patrimoine et le multiplie, et enfin les exigences particulières du travail de médiation, en perpétuelle évolution et requérant un savoir-faire à la fois spécialisé et polymorphe. Pour réfléchir à ces enjeux, l’autrice se penchera plus particulièrement sur le cas des collections de la Bibliothèque nationale conservées au sein de Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (BAnQ).
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".