MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552787576 · doi:10.1093/llc/fqw048

Whatever happened to interchange?

2016· article· en· W2552787576 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Holmes

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Scholarship in the Humanities · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteroperabilityXMLEncoding (memory)Computer scienceWork (physics)World Wide WebKnowledge managementEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The adoption of XML and encoding standards such as those developed by the Text Encoding Initiative was accompanied by expectations of easy interoperability which are now widely seen as unfulfilled. The related but distinct concept of ‘interchange’ has received much less attention. This article argues that, particularly for sophisticated digital edition projects using XML, interchange is a more practical goal, and that approached in a specific way, it is highly beneficial not only to potential end users of the project’s data but also to the project itself. The article illustrates specific strategies and approaches to enabling and facilitating interchange, using work undertaken on the Map of Early Modern London (MoEML) project as a case study.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.145 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Scholarship in the HumanitiesSame topicDigital Humanities and ScholarshipFrench-language works237,207