Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical editing is a practice whose contours have been well established by the philological tradition. The different critical conventions are well known and have been subject to a myriad of scientific studies. Nevertheless, critical edition has been undergoing changes since the development of new technologies. Digital critical editions have multiplied and today represent a large and varied panel. As a consequence, it’s worth observing, beyond technological innovations, what digital editing brings in terms of methodology and publishing conceptualisation. Obviously, in digital editions as in traditional editions, the final goal is offering readers a text that they will be able to consult and use in their research: the edited text should be a stable one, that can be an authoritative resource. The uniqueness of digital edition’s design, however, requires editors to reflect, right from the start of the publication process, on the information that they are going to provide, as well as on the way in which they will be presenting it. From the very beginning of its development, digital editing entails, then, a true awareness of how it will be received. It permits, also, a significant diversification of information presented in editions. It ultimately distinguishes itself with its open nature: digital editing is open in terms of content evolution over time just as it is in terms of collaborative editing. Résumé L’édition critique est une pratique dont les contours ont été bien établis par la tradition philologique. Les différents courants critiques sont bien connus et ont fait l’objet de nombreuses études scientifiques. Cependant, depuis le développement des nouvelles technologies, l’édition critique est en pleine mutation. Les éditions critiques numériques se sont multipliées et constituent aujourd’hui un panel large et varié. Dès lors, il importe d’observer, au-delà des innovations techniques, ce que l’édition numérique apporte en termes de méthodologie et de conceptualisation de l’édition. Bien évidemment, dans l’édition numérique comme dans l’édition traditionnelle, l’objectif final consiste à proposer au lecteur un texte qu’il va pouvoir consulter et utiliser dans ses recherches: le texte édité doit être un texte stable, qui puisse faire autorité. Cependant, la spécificité de conception des éditions numériques oblige les éditeurs à s’interroger, dès le début du processus d’édition, sur les informations qu’ils vont fournir, ainsi que sur la manière dont ils les présenteront. L’édition numérique implique alors, dès le début de son développement, une réelle prise en compte de la réception. Elle permet également une diversification importante des informations présentées dans l’édition. Elle se démarque enfin par son caractère ouvert: l’édition numérique est ouverte en termes d’évolution de contenu dans le temps tout comme en termes de collaboration au travail d’édition. Mots-clés: Edition critique; philologie; humanités numériques; édition numérique; philologie numérique
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 | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".