MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913576480 · doi:10.1177/155019061601200406

A Digital Voice from the Dust: The Joseph Smith Papers at the Intersection of Public and Digital History <sup>1</sup>

2016· article· en· W2913576480 on OpenAlexaff
Brent M. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueCollections A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLatin American and Latino Studies
Canadian institutionsSmiths Detection (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipContext (archaeology)Transparency (behavior)Representation (politics)Character (mathematics)Public historyIntersection (aeronautics)Convergence (economics)HistoryMedia studiesSociologyComputer scienceArt historyLawPolitical scienceEngineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like other documentary editing projects, the Joseph Smith Papers—an effort to produce a comprehensive edition of the papers of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more commonly known as Mormons—seeks to provide reliable access to “the authentic voice” of its eponymous historical figure in innovative ways. As a digital voice from the dust, the project makes Smith's words, character, and context accessible in the online representation of his papers in ways that forcefully illustrate the convergence of public and digital history. This article uses the Joseph Smith Papers Project (JSPP) as a case study to look at documentary collections at the intersection of digital and public history while exploring issues of scholarship, access, and transparency. The trends described here promise to have implications for the larger fields of digitally presented public history and documentary collections.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0230.022
Scholarly communication0.0270.013
Open science0.0010.013
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollections A Journal for Museum and Archives ProfessionalsSame topicLatin American and Latino StudiesFrench-language works237,207