Bibliographic record
Abstract
international journal Library and Information History, has brought together a respected group of international and interdisciplinary scholars who share a variety of experiences in researching, and teaching and writing about, digital material.These academics produced ten essays focusing on how to conceptualize and understand the implications of the new domain of digital history.The book is divided into four interpretive sections: "Re-conceptualizing History in the Digital Age," "Studying History in the Digital Age," "Teaching History in the Digital Age," and "The Future of History in the Digital Age."The first section considers concepts of historical evidence and its interpretation and analysis in historiography.The common thread, as expressed in Luke Tredinnick's "The Making of History: Remediating Historicized Experience," is the need "not to sacrifice the rational, logical, and empirical approach to knowledge that has been the hallmark of the humanities since the Enlightenment, but rather to complement it with different ways of discovery" (p.47).Tredinnick reminds us that "the histories written throughout the early modern period continued to be ecumenical about evidence, lacking later scholarship's rigorous classification of source materials, and frequently placing scripture, literature, myth and tradition on an equal footing" (p.47).Not until the nineteenth century did the notion of an objectively understood past become the dominant historical discourse."It reflected the investment of the past in a written archive that was itself governed by the contingencies of an emerging administrative rationality" (p.47).In both discovery and discourse, digital technology adds to historical evidence the qualities of immediacy and variety of experience, which suggests new implications for our understanding of the past -that perhaps the digital environment is forcing historians to reassess historical consciousness as we are confronted with new means to access, discover, and relate the idea of history.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".