MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011753824 · doi:10.1353/lit.0.0032

“The Web of Our Life is of a Mingled Yarn”: The Canadian Adaptations of Shakespeare Project, Humanities Scholarship, and ColdFusion

2009· article· en· W2011753824 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel Fischlin, Dorothy Hadfield, G. Brooke Lester, Mark A. McCutcheon

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege literature · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipContext (archaeology)Digital humanitiesWorld Wide WebFace (sociological concept)PublishingProcess (computing)Web applicationArchitectureThe InternetSociologyComputer scienceHumanitiesArtHistoryLiteraturePolitical scienceVisual artsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay presents an overview of some of the challenges related to publishing the findings of a large-scale research project on Shakespeare––specifically the Canadian Adaptations of Shakespeare Project or CASP; www.canadianshakespeares.ca--on the World Wide Web. Our purpose in writing the essay is to allow others undertaking large-scale, IT-based projects related to Shakespeare––or any other Humanities research that involves extensive database manipulation on the Web––to understand and resolve some of the problems they will face: whether related to site architecture; database design and management; copyright; use of multimedia; and a host of other related issues that pose significant obstacles to presenting research via a web-based context. Humanities computing projects like CASP provide valuable testing grounds for realizing the inherent potential associated with new technologies. But even as they do so, the process of creating these resources lays bare the difficulties confronting new forms of knowledge as they are mobilized in formats that challenge traditional modes of research publication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollege literatureSame topicPhilippine History and CultureFrench-language works237,207