MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1682543355 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2015v40n3a2728

The Digital Humanities and Democracy

2015· article· en· W1682543355 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Andrea Hunter

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDigital humanitiesDigitizationDemocratizationHumanitiesHumanismDemocracyDiversity (politics)SociologyFocus (optics)Political scienceArtComputer scienceAnthropologyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been much debate in recent years as to what constitutes the digital humanities. This article argues that one way to articulate the digital humanities is through a focus on the democratization of the humanities, by increasing access to and participation in the humanities, rather than through an emphasis on technology use. Using a case study approach, and the theory of structuration, this article examines how digital humanists are attempting to expand the reach and diversity of the humanities through the digitization of data and the building of digital tools.

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)0.011
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.041
Scholarly communication0.0150.009
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.134 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicDigital Humanities and ScholarshipFrench-language works237,207