MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090010829 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.2587481

How to Facilitate Cooperation between Humanities Researchers and Cultural Heritage Institutions. Guidelines

2019· article· en· W3090010829 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLirias (KU Leuven) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Literary Analyses
Canadian institutionsCanarie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital humanitiesCultural heritagePolitical scienceSociologyPublic relationsHumanitiesEngineering ethicsEngineeringLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overall objective of this report is to support collaboration between humanities researchers (literary and cultural studies, history, arts) on the one hand, and cultural heritage institutions on the other, by raising awareness about the possibilities for reusing heritage resources in academic settings and increasing the visibility of online heritage collections. This publication aims to provide both cultural heritage institutions and researchers with know-how, examples of good practice which will enable and strengthen collaboration between both sides, and enable a greater circulation and reuse of heritage resources within the academic field. This document was prepared during a hands-on workshop for representatives of the European academic community and heritage professionals who are working to share their collections online in order to promote digital methods and the academic reuse of heritage content. We engaged humanities researchers who expressed an interest in exploring digitised cultural resources, and heritage professionals who create internal institutional policies for providing access and sharing resources online. The workshop took place at the Digital Humanities Centre at the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw (Poland) on 19–20 June 2018. Invited experts included Natalie Harrower (Digital Repository of Ireland), Mark Sweetnam (Trinity College Dublin), David Brown (Trinity College Dublin), and Marcin Werla (Poznań Supercomputing and Networking Center). Twelve participants from various European countries were recruited through an open call for contributors (they are listed as co-authors of this document). The workshop participants explored the main problems associated with heritage reuse in the context of their expertise and later translated those discussions into this document through a ‘book-sprint,’ which was facilitated by Kamil Śliwowski. The workshop and the preparation of the guidelines were funded by a DARIAH Theme 2017 grant, which was awarded for the project ‘Facilitating Cooperation Between Humanities Researchers and Cultural Heritage Institutions,’ jointly proposed by the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, and Creative Commons Polska.

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.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.396
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.055 · 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