Bibliographic record
Abstract
These are three reviews for Digital Medievalist, published in order of acceptance.In the first review, Eleonora Litta reviews Bodard, Gabriel and Matteo Romanello’s (2016) Digital Classics outside the Echo-Chamber: Teaching, Knowledge Exchange and Public Engagement. Digital Classics Outside the Echo-Chamber is mainly addressed to Digital Humanists. It showcases exciting methodological examples of the application of digital tools to the Humanities, and demonstrates their impact on pedagogy and public outreach.In the second review, Traianos Manos reviews the online database ALIM: Archivio della Latinità Italiana del Medioevo. The Archive of the Italian Latinity of the Middle Ages (http://en.alim.unisi.it/), which aims “to provide free online access to all the Latin texts produced in Italy during the Middle Ages”. After presenting Archive’s new website, the review discusses issues in editorial approach, usability, digital tools available and more. It concludes that the Archive, wherein there are still opportunities for further enhancements, is one of the most important digital libraries of medieval Latin texts that exist today.For the final review, Lisa Fagin Davis reviews Codicology and Palaeography in the Digital Age 4. Codicology and Paleography in the Digital Age 4 (henceforth CPDA4) continues the series of volumes that began with the proceedings of a 2009 conference, in this case combining solicited contributions to the proceedings of the “Machines and Manuscripts” conference organized under the auspices of the eCodicology project and held in Trier, Karlsruhe and Darmstadt, 2014–2016. Contributions are by senior and junior digital scholars, working alone or in teams, presenting works both in-progress and complete. CPDA4 thus functions as a “state of the field,” focusing more on case studies and methodology than theory, demonstrating how the theoretical approaches of the previous volumes can be put into action. The editors have chosen to divide the volume into two sections, “Digital Codicology” and “Digital Paleography.” Contributions are in English or German, with abstracts in both languages. Each contribution is accompanied by a detailed bibliography listing both printed and online resources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.316 | 0.235 |
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".