MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980077923 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2019.0037

Indexing, Checking, and Encoding in the Periodical Poetry Index

2019· article· en· W2980077923 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Natalie M. Houston, Lindsy Lawrence, April Patrick

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndex (typography)ScholarshipPoetryPeriodical literatureSearch engine indexingHistoryLibrary scienceSociologyLiteratureComputer scienceArtInformation retrievalLawWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indexing, Checking, and Encoding in the Periodical Poetry Index Natalie M. Houston (bio), Lindsy Lawrence (bio), and April Patrick (bio) This cluster of essays originates from a panel at the Research Society for Victorian Periodicals and Victorian Studies Association of Western Canada joint conference in July 2018. On this panel we explored some of the different scholarly activities that compose the Periodical Poetry Index, discussing the theoretical underpinnings and methodological commitments of our work that would interest both scholars in periodical studies and the digital humanities more broadly. The breadth of bibliographic information now presented by the Periodical Poetry Index comes from our discoveries made while indexing, checking, and encoding the bibliographic data from Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine (1817–1900), the Cornhill (1860–1900), Dark Blue (1871–73), and Macmillan's Monthly Magazine (1859–1900).1 There is a long tradition of collaborative bibliographic scholarship in periodical studies. Most notably The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals, published in five volumes from 1966 to 1988, has served as the foundation for modern research in Victorian periodicals. The idea for The Wellesley Index originated in correspondence between Walter Houghton and Richard Altick as they shared their knowledge of periodical contributors writing unsigned articles.2 Houghton saw the tremendous resources available to scholars in Victorian periodicals and sought to make them more accessible by creating a research tool that reproduced the tables of contents and identified the authors of a large number of unsigned pieces. Like the Wellesley team, we benefit from scholarly collaboration that spans geographic location, and we have the added benefits of digital tools that support our communication and research. Sharing our work digitally frees us from the physical and financial constraints that often burdened Houghton and his team, who had to persuade the University of Toronto [End Page 604] Press to continue publishing an ever-expanding scholarly resource. Houghton recalled, "In my correspondence with the University of Toronto Press, I had agreed to two volumes and not over 100,000 items in Part A—fewer if possible," but his initial agreements with the press would be greatly surpassed as the project continued.3 The scale of Victorian periodical publishing was much greater than even Houghton had initially imagined. As work on The Wellesley Index proceeded, the editors not only covered additional periodical titles but also incorporated updates and corrections in later volumes. Eileen Curran's updates to the Wellesley information, published in regular intervals in Victorian Periodicals Review and later as The Curran Index, continued this iterative process of discovery and correction. Because we are working with digital surrogates created by the Google Books project, we can conduct most of our research without traveling to libraries with large periodical holdings. As we make corrections or alterations to the data collected for our project, we can update the database and the web display of its information. Our project was inspired by Linda K. Hughes's essay "What the Wellesley Index Left Out: Why Poetry Matters to Periodical Studies," which vividly demonstrates the scholarly lacunae created by Houghton's decision to omit poetry from the indexes produced by his team. Because The Wellesley Index made Victorian periodicals more accessible to scholars, poetry's "omission skews our understanding of both Victorian poetry and periodicals, which were interrelated in highly complex terms."4 Although aesthetic considerations undoubtedly played a part in this decision, so did the Wellesley's focus on identifying unsigned contributors: Houghton suggests that "to include 7000 or so poems, in many cases anonymous or pseudonymous, and if signed, by obscure versifiers, would cost far too much space, labor, and funding."5 He greatly underestimated the sheer quantity of poems published in the pages of Victorian periodicals. Our research in five titles alone has uncovered almost 5,000 poems, and we fully expect to index thousands more in the years to come. In the first phase of our project, we are indexing poems published in the forty-five periodicals covered in The Wellesley Index. We know that approximately half of these titles contain significant quantities of verse, but the exact details of poetry's distribution will only be evident once we have collected data for each of the titles. Because The...

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0150.022
Science and technology studies0.0080.019
Scholarly communication0.0220.025
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.006

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 head0.255
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicDigital Humanities and ScholarshipFrench-language works237,207