MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Application of Quantitative Methods to the History of the Book

2020· reference-entry· en· W3100295922 on OpenAlexaff
Ezio Ornato

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Archaeological Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nautical Research Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)HistoryQuantitative analysis (chemistry)Composition (language)Computer scienceArtLiteratureChemistryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter examines quantitative methods in the study of manuscripts, discussing the quantification of various measureable aspects of medieval book production, the typographic composition of early printing shops, the physical characteristics of manuscripts, and the measurements of page layouts, while arguing that the quantitative study of books is fundamentally focused on understanding the “why” of book production, rather than the “who, what, when, where, and how”.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.141
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.141
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0150.017
Science and technology studies0.0030.018
Scholarly communication0.0130.011
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.320
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical and Archaeological StudiesFrench-language works237,207