Transfer Learning for OCRopus Model Training on Early Printed Books
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method is presented that significantly reduces the character error rates for OCR text obtained from OCRopus models trained on early printed books when only small amounts of diplomatic transcriptions are available. This is achieved by building from already existing models during training instead of starting from scratch. To overcome the discrepancies between the set of characters of the pretrained model and the additional ground truth the OCRopus code is adapted to allow for alphabet expansion or reduction. The character set is now capable of flexibly adding and deleting characters from the pretrained alphabet when an existing model is loaded. For our experiments we use a self-trained mixed model on early Latin prints and the two standard OCRopus models on modern English and German Fraktur texts. The evaluation on seven early printed books showed that training from the Latin mixed model reduces the average amount of errors by 43% and 26%, compared to training from scratch with 60 and 150 lines of ground truth, respectively. Furthermore, it is shown that even building from mixed models trained on standard data unrelated to the newly added training and test data can lead to significantly improved recognition results.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".