MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1707236347 · doi:10.16995/dscn.259

The Balance between On-line and In-person Interactions: Methods for the Development of Digital Humanities Collaboration

2011· article· en· W1707236347 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lynne Siemens

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Studies / Le champ numérique · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalance (ability)Digital humanitiesContext (archaeology)Knowledge managementSociologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceLibrary sciencePsychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the role of both digital and in-person collaboration tools and considers the need for a balance between these within the context of Digital Humanities (DH) research teams. First, the uses, benefits and trade-offs of various communication channels are outlined. From there, the application of these various channels within DH research teams and their impact on collaboration will be explored by drawing upon interviews with members of DH teams. Best practices and recommendations for DH research teams and funding agencies will conclude the paper.

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)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.015
Scholarly communication0.0110.014
Open science0.0040.017
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.127 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Studies / Le champ numériqueSame topicDigital Humanities and ScholarshipFrench-language works237,207