Interdisciplinary, Interactive, and Online: Building open communication through multimodal scholarly articles and monographs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of digital scholarship in the humanities and the social sciences has brought a renewed emphasis on culture, at the levels of modelling and communication. New forms of digital scholarship—including projects in big data, physical computing, and gameful design—experiment with methods for modelling cultural data, considering how the historical and social issues addressed by the humanities and the social sciences can be expressed through electronic means. Alongside these advances, equal progress is under way in the realm of scholarly communication. Developments in the areas of peer review, scholarly collaboration, and digital publishing, including the development of Open Journal Systems (OJS), spur the growth of online cultural and intellectual communities surrounding humanistic endeavour. As these advancements progress alongside each other, the question of how they might be integrated remains. Coupling advancements in the realm of digital scholarship with new forms of publishing and peer review promises to leverage the affordances of both, making public-facing platforms for cultural content, while building vibrant intellectual communities around them.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".