Expert/Crowd-Sourcing for the Linked Modernisms Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though “Building Partnerships to Transform Scholarly Publishing” has never officially been part of the mandate of either the Modernist Versions Project (MVP) or Linked Modernisms (LiMo), upon reflection, it has turned out to be among their key functions. Advancing new ways of doing scholarship within the field of modernist studies has driven us to explore novel approaches to publishing, and demonstrated the utter necessity of partnerships to make those approaches effective. In what follows we will provide a quick introduction to the Modernist Versions Project and some of the tools we use, consider what sort of inquiries appear at scale, and give an overview of the Linked Modernisms Project. We will attend in particular to how this suite of projects has led us to rethink traditional scholarly publishing practices, and how partnerships have become indispensable to mobilizing our research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.014 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".