Building a Digital Research Community in Medieval and Early Modern Studies: The Australian Network for Early European Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the work done by the Australian Network for Early European Research (NEER) to build a national digital research community in this field. Funded through the Australian Research Council's Research Networks programme during the period 2005-2010, NEER's overall goal was to enhance the scale and focus of Australian research in medieval and early modern studies. Developing and implementing appropriate digital technologies was one of the main methods used to address this goal. In the end, NEER's digital programme produced three main services: a service for collaboration (Confluence), a service for the publication and storage of research outputs (PioNEER), and a service for identifying and engaging with the objects of this research (Europa Inventa). This paper evaluates the effect of these services on Early European research in Australia. It also considers their future, now that government funding for NEER has ended.
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 | 0.042 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".