Hofmeister, Wernfried and Andrea Hofmeister-Winter, eds., 2009. Wege zum Text. Überlegungen zur Verfügbarkeit mediävistischer Editionen im 21. Jahrhundert. Grazer Kolloquium 17.-19. September 2008. Beihefte zu editio, Band 30. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 247 pages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In September 2008, a colloquium was held in Graz to discuss future-oriented creation, distribution, and storage of editions of medieval texts. The volume reviewed here, Wege zum Text. Überlegungen zur Verfügbarkeit mediävistischer Editionen, is the product of this colloquium and consists of 19 articles, 16 of which are also accessible as podcasts on the colloquium's homepage ( ). For many, the option to listen to the talks as well as read the papers might not be more than a nifty extra. However, the site shines by providing access to many of the documents that were given out at the colloquium and by linking to some of the projects' homepages. With the exception of the podcast of the medieval buffet held at the 2008 colloquium, the podcasts work flawlessly.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.021 |
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".