MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285348533 · doi:10.16995/dm.52

Reading: Exploration of a Large Database of French Notarial Acts with Social Network Methods

2013· article· en· W2285348533 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Medievalist · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRelational databaseConsistency (knowledge bases)Set (abstract data type)Information retrievalDECIPHERRelational modelRelation (database)Variety (cybernetics)Data miningVisualizationData scienceArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article illustrates how mathematical and statistical tools designed to handle relational data may be useful to help decipher the most important features and defects of a large historical database and to gain knowledge about a corpus made of several thousand documents. Such a relational model is generally enough to address a wide variety of problems, including most databases containing relational tables. In mathematics, it is referred to as a network or a graph. The article's purpose is to emphasise how a relevant relational model of a historical corpus can serve as a theoretical framework which makes available automatic data mining methods designed for graphs. By such methods, for one thing, consistency checking can be performed so as to extract possible transcription errors or interpretation errors during the transcription automatically. Moreover, when the database is so large that a human being is unable to gain much knowledge by even an exhaustive manual exploration, relational data mining can help elucidate the database's main features. First, the macroscopic structure of the relations between entities can be emphasised with the help of network summaries automatically produced by classification methods. A complementary point of view is obtained via local summaries of the relation structure: a set of network-related indicators can be calculated for each entity, singling out, for instance, highly connected entities. Finally, visualisation methods dedicated to graphs can be used to give the user an intuitive understanding of the database. Additional information can be superimposed on such network visualisations, making it possible to intuitively link the relations between entities using attributes that describe each entity. This overall approach is here illustrated with a large corpus of medieval notarial acts, containing several thousand transactions and involving a comparable number of persons.network analysis, transcription error detection, notarial acts, data mining in graphs, clustering in graphs

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.304 · 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