MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996187296 · doi:10.16995/dscn.329

GEMMS (Gateway to Early Modern Manuscript Sermons 1530–1715): Confronting the Challenges of Sermons Research

2019· article· en· W2996187296 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anne James, Jeanne Shami

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Studies / Le champ numérique · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperaHumanitiesGateway (web page)SermonHistoryArtLibrary scienceLiteratureWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay describes the first phase of the GEMMS project (2014–2019), the purpose of which is to increase access to early modern English manuscript sermons and sermon notes (1530–1715) by creating a freely accessible online bibliographic database of records for these materials. It reviews the need for this resource, the current state of its development, and the challenges and successes to date as well as proposed developments in its next phase. <strong>Résumé</strong> Cet article décrit la première phase du projet GEMMS (2014–2019), dont l’objectif est de faciliter l’accès à des manuscrits et notes des sermons en anglais moderne naissant (1530–1715) en créant une base de données bibliographique en ligne et en libre accès des archives de ces documents. Cet article examine le besoin de cette ressource, l’état actuel de son développement, les défis et réussites jusqu’à présent, ainsi que les développements proposés pour la prochaine phase du projet. <strong>Mots-clés:</strong> sermons; manuscrits; base de données bibliographique; notes de sermons; Renaissance

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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 venueDigital Studies / Le champ numériqueSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207