Europejski sondaż praktyk cyfrowych w humanistyce i naukach o sztuce. Najważniejsze wyniki (wersja polska)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Najważniejsze wyniki europejskiego sondażu praktyk badawczych oraz potrzeb cyfrowych w humanistyce i naukach o sztuce, przeprowadzonego przez grupę roboczą DARIAH Digital Methods and Practices Observatory (DiMPO). Badanie jest efektem współpracy europejskich badaczy z różnych krajów w ramach Grupy Roboczej DiMPO. Badanie zostało pomyślana jako ponadregionalny sondaż podłużny, przeprowadzany co kilka lat online w krajach europejskich. Jego celem jest dostarczenie opartego na danych przeglądu praktyk badawczych, potrzeb i postaw europejskich badaczy z nauk humanistycznych wobec zasobów cyfrowych, metod i narzędzi, w perspektywie przestrzennej i czasowej. Wyniki pierwszego sondażu (zakończonego w marcu 2015) zostaną zaprezentowane w wieloautorskim raporcie, który zawiera analizy zbiorcze i porównawcze oraz pięć raportów narodowych. Kolejne badanie planowane jest na 2017-2018. Więcej informacji: bit.ly/scholarlypractices Przekład na polski: Maciej Maryl (Centrum Humanistyki Cyfrowej Instytutu Badań Literackich PAN) ------ The highlights of the European survey on scholarly practices and digital needs in the arts and humanities carried out by DARIAH Digital Methods and Practices Observatory WG (DiMPO). This research is the outcome of collaborative work of European researchers from different countries, working within the DiMPO Working Group. It has been designed as a multiregional longitudinal survey, to be conducted online across European countries and to be repeated every few years. Its aim is to provide an evidence-based outlook of scholarly practices, needs and attitudes of European humanities researchers towards digital resources, methods and tools across space and time. Results of the first run of the survey (completed in March 2015) are presented in a multi-authored report, which includes comparative and consolidated analyses, as well as five country profiles. A new run is planned for 2017-18.<br> For more information, see bit.ly/scholarlypractices. Polish translation: Maciej Maryl (Digital Humanities Centre at the Institute of Literary Research, Polish Academy of Sciences)
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".