MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1507603318 · doi:10.2218/forum.0.688

Realising (re)vision, manipulating manoeuvres: editing the English Middle Ages

2014· article· en· W1507603318 on OpenAlexaff
Kenna L. Olsen

Bibliographic record

VenueFORUM University of Edinburgh Postgraduate Journal of Culture & the Arts · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)Middle EnglishMiddle AgesHistoryLinguisticsLiteratureVisual artsArtClassicsPhilosophyPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the importance and relevance of textual editing for students and scholars of historical literatures, especially Middle English texts. By surveying the different types of editions necessary for studying Middle English literature, the author argues that in the "digital age," an understanding of The Edition is necessary, not only for the preservation of cultural texts, but also for the contribution and understanding of interpretations fundamental to literary disciplines.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFORUM University of Edinburgh Postgraduate Journal of Culture & the ArtsSame topicDigital Humanities and ScholarshipFrench-language works237,207