MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7153957599

Technical-legal framework of digital documents electronic management in company : study in French, Belgian, Luxembourgish and Quebec Law

2025· article· fr· W7153957599 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Markiewicz

Bibliographic record

Venuetheses.fr (ABES) · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObsolescenceElectronic documentProfit (economics)Historical document
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pour des raisons tant économiques que technologiques voire environnementales, les entreprises ont entrepris de délaisser la forme papier au profit de la forme numérique confrontant ainsi ces deux environnements, sur les plans archivistique et juridique. Il n’en demeure pas moins que la conservation documentaire se calque toujours le cycle de vie du document. En dehors du fait de respecter, les trois phases de vie du contrat : la phase précontractuelle, la phase contractuelle et la phase post-contractuelle, il est surtout soumis à la théorie des trois âges, en archivistique, couvrant de la numérisation documentaire du document sous forme papier à sa destruction documentaire, sous forme papier et numérique. À cet égard, la numérisation documentaire consiste à octroyer à un document sous forme papier, une forme numérique. Ceci nous ramène aux concepts de document original et de copie, en archivistique et en droit, ainsi que celui de transfert. En chemin, l’activité de conservation documentaire a aussi pris le virage de la dématérialisation documentaire ; on entend souvent parler d’« archivage électronique » ou de « Records Management ». Celle-ci est aussi intrinsèquement liée aux progrès technologiques, en perpétuelle mutation, qui sous-entend une obsolescence technologique qu’il faut combattre pour assurer une conservation documentaire pérenne des documents numériques. Une attention toute particulière sera portée à la signature électronique car elle permet de finaliser un document numérique mais est aussi une mesure de sécurité informatique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0070.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuetheses.fr (ABES)Same topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207