Bibliographic record
Abstract
Watermarks are key to retracing the origins of paper manuscripts and early printed books and to understanding the context in which they were produced. TEI-P5, one of the most commonly used XML standards for digital descriptions of text-bearing objects, offers the possibility to describe watermarks, but not yet in a sufficiently detailed and consistent manner. The present article introduces a TEI-P5 customization for the description of paper and watermarks based on the International Standard for the Description of Paper, Watermarks and Paper Moulds in Relational Databases (IPHN 2.1.1). This customization provides TEI users with tools to make detailed, structured and standardized descriptions of paper, watermarks, and paper moulds. Such descriptions have the potential to improve the communication and collaboration between the different scholars working on paper manuscripts and early printed books. Moreover, once organized into a database, they can be mined in order to determine the origin and circulation of paper types. Therefore, the present customization can represent a strong asset in the study of the origins and material contexts of paper documents, handwritten or printed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".