Enabling the Encoding of Manuscripts within the DTABf: Extension and Modularization of the Format
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents work in progress on the DTA “Base Format” for Manuscripts (DTABf-M), an extension to the DTA “Base Format” (DTABf) for the TEI-conformant annotation of manuscripts. The DTABf is a TEI-subset for the consistent, yet unambiguous, annotation of large amounts of historical text. During our work on the DTA corpora, the DTABf has continuously been subject to further adaptations to specific annotation needs. The latest addition, the DTABf-M, contains elements, attributes, and values necessary for the annotation of (historical) handwritten documents. The goal is to provide a TEI format for diverse manuscripts in large text corpora. While the DTABf covers a wide range of phenomena found not only in printed texts but also in manuscripts, there are certain manuscript-specific features which have to be additionally represented by the DTABf-M. There are several prerequisites for DTABf-M to be suitable for the DTA and its workflows and processes: First, it should be based on the original DTABf tagset, and only extend it if unavoidable. Second, like the DTABf, the DTABf-M should be created in a bottom-up approach, that is, based on actual phenomena found in handwritten texts which are transcribed and encoded using the DTABf. Third, the format should complement the DTABf, not replace it. Hence, it is necessary to find a modular way of integrating the DTABf-M into the DTABf. This paper describes how we deal with these issues in the process of developing the DTABf-M.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it