Les archives publiques au Québec : La difficile construction d'une mémoire collective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'A. rappelle les facteurs qui ont eu un impact sur la conservation, la dispersion ou la perte d'archives d'origine publique au Quebec, depuis la colonisation francaise jusqu'a aujourd'hui. A l'aide d'exemples, il presente, dans un premier temps, les principaux facteurs qui ont provoque la perte d'archives : les incendies, les mauvaises conditions de conservation, les guerres, la confusion entre les archives publiques et privees, les changements politiques et la destruction volontaire de documents juges inutiles et encombrants. L'A. poursuit en identifiant les principales interventions de l'administration publique pour se doter de conditions adequates de conservation en rappelant notamment les recommandations de l'intendant Gilles Hocquart en 1731, la publication d'inventaires au 17e et 18e siecles et la mise en place en 1994 d'un nouveau systeme informatique (PISTARD) aux Archives nationales du Quebec. Ces actions temoignent de la volonte de l'administration publique de satisfaire aux besoins des citoyens et de s'assurer que les documents temoignant des droits et des obligations de l'Etat et des citoyens soient sauvegardes. Depuis le milieu du 20e siecle, l'administration publique se preoccupe aussi de la valeur secondaire ou patrimoniale des documents qu'elle genere et poursuit ses efforts a constituer un patrimoine archivistique susceptible de repondre aux besoins futurs de la recherche. L'A. conclut que l'Etat doit dorenavant veiller a ce que les outils mis en place aujourd'hui soient adaptes pour repondre aux exigences des nouvelles technologies de l'information.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".