Adapting the Edinburgh Geoparser for Historical Georeferencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Place name mentions in text may have more than one potential referent (e.g. Peru, the country vs. Peru, the city in Indiana). The Edinburgh Language Technology Group (LTG) has developed the Edinburgh Geoparser, a system that can automatically recognise place name mentions in text and disambiguate them with respect to a gazetteer. The recognition step is required to identify location mentions in a given piece of text. The subsequent disambiguation step, generally referred to as georesolution, grounds location mentions to their corresponding gazetteer entries with latitude and longitude values, for example, to visualise them on a map. Geoparsing is not only useful for mapping purposes but also for making document collections more accessible as it can provide additional metadata about the geographical content of documents. Combined with other information mined from text such as person names and date expressions, complex relations between such pieces of information can be identified. The Edinburgh Geoparser can be used with several gazetteers including Unlock and GeoNames to process a variety of input texts. The original version of the Geoparser was a demonstrator configured for modern text. Since then, it has been adapted to georeference historic and ancient text collections as well as modern-day newspaper text. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Currently, the LTG is involved in three research projects applying the Geoparser to historical text collections of very different types and for a variety of end-user applications. This paper discusses the ways in which we have customised the Geoparser for specific datasets and applications relevant to each project.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.021 |
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".