Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article, which was presented for the first time at CSDH/SCHN 2018, outlines a mixed methodology that combines digital text-mining techniques, like XML tagging and topic modelling, with autoethnography. In this article, I describe my intimate and rocky relationship with my data, referred to as my “life-as-text.” As someone who has Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, I have an extremely difficult time putting many of the events of my life into situational and linear context. The process of formally tagging my data requires me to overcome psychological blocks that have been created as defense mechanisms; thus, allowing me to honestly read and create associations in my dissociated “life-as-text.” Conducting a macroanalysis of data that was gathered through both journaling, and the recording and transcription of “let’s play” videos, has given me a new lens through which to view myself and my experiences. I see myself in my data. I see myself in ways that I cannot otherwise put into words. Text-mining my deepest memories and emotions provides me with an odd sense of stability in a seemingly chaotic assortment of words. In this article, I explain my autoethnographic journey and the powerful impact that digital text-mining has had on my relation to myself and my research. Abstrakt Cet article, qui a été premièrement présenté à CSDH/SCHN 2018, décrit une méthodologie mixte qui marie des techniques numériques de la fouille de texte, tels que le marquage XML et la modélisation thématique, et l’auto-ethnographie. Dans cet article, je décris ma relation intime et difficile avec mes données, ce que je nomme ma « vie en tant que texte ». En tant qu’une personne ayant le Syndrome de stress post-traumatique complexe, j’ai d’énormes difficultés à contextualiser d’une façon situationnelle et linéaire beaucoup des évènements de ma vie. Le processus de marquage formel de mes données m’exige de surmonter des blocages psychologiques qui ont été créés comme mécanismes de défense, me permettant de lire honnêtement et de développer des associations dans ma « vie en tant que texte » dissociée. Effectuer une macroanalyse de données, qui ont été récoltées à travers la tenue d’un journal, ainsi qu’à travers l’enregistrement et la transcription de vidéos « jouons » (“let’s play”), m’a offert une nouvelle perspective par laquelle je me considère et par laquelle je considère mes expériences. Je me vois dans mes données. Je me vois d’une façon dont je ne trouve pas les mots pour le décrire. La fouille de textes de mes souvenirs et de mes émotions les plus profondes me fournit une sensation étrange de stabilité au sein d’une gamme de mots qui est chaotique en apparence. Dans cet article, j’explique mon parcours auto-ethnographique et l’impact important qu’a eu la fouille de textes sur ma relation avec moi-même et avec ma recherche. Mots-clés: Autoethnographie; Modélisation de sujets; XML; Méthodologies mixtes; Exploration de texte; Aliénation; SSPT-complexe
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 | 0.016 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".