MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245880898 · doi:10.1093/llc/fqz077

Introduction

2019· article· en· W4245880898 on OpenAlexaff
Dominic Forest, Diane Jakacki, Cecily Raynor, Michael E. Sinatra, Stéfan Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Scholarship in the Humanities · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In July 2017, McGill University and Université de Montréal hosted the 2017 conference of the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO). The four local organizers (Forest, Raynor, Sinatra, and Sinclair) welcomed over 900 delegates on the McGill campus in downtown Montreal for 4 days of intellectual exchanges, a deep engagement with practical and theoretical aspects of Digital Humanities, and the question of open access highlighted in our chosen theme ‘Access/Accès’. This was the first time two Quebec universities jointly hosted the annual Digital Humanities (DH) gathering, and only the third time the conference had taken place in Canada since the founding of ADHO over 30 years ago (first in Toronto in 1997, and then in Victoria in 2005). The conference was also officially bilingual in French and English for the first time, since Canada is a bilingual country. The ADHO is an umbrella organization whose goals are to promote and support digital research and teaching across arts and humanities disciplines, drawing together humanists engaged in digital and computer-assisted research, teaching, creation, dissemination, and beyond, in all areas reflected by its diverse membership. ADHO supports initiatives for publication, presentation, collaboration, and training; recognizes and supports excellence in these endeavours; and acts as a community-based consultative and advisory force. In doing so, ADHO embraces and coordinates activity across its constituent organizations: the European Association for Digital Humanities (founded in 1973 as the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing), the Association for Computers and the Humanities (founded in 1978), the Canadian Society for Digital Humanities/Société canadienne des humanités numériques (founded in 1986 as the Consortium for Computers in the Humanities/Consortium pour ordinateurs en sciences humaines), centerNet, the Australasian Association for Digital Humanities, the Japanese Association for Digital Humanities, Humanistica: l’association francophone des humanités numériques, Digital Humanities Association of Southern Africa, Red de Humanidades Digitales, and the Taiwanese Association for Digital Humanities. The overarching goal of our conference was to bring together established and emerging leaders to take stock of what Digital Humanities looks like today and envision its future directions. Related, specific objectives were to (1) nurture knowledge exchanges and connections between scholars and graduate students, as well as underemployed community members, from all around the world; (2) highlight cutting edge experiments from within and beyond the field; and (3) showcase the relevance of Digital Humanities for public scholarship. To achieve these objectives, the programme committee and the local organizers invited contributions that focus on knowledge mobilization, public-facing scholarship, collaboration among scholars and communities, open access to code, software, research and results, and aspects of digital humanities research and publication involving accessibility technologies. As with other DH conferences, the main audience of our event comprised established and new scholars, including students, from a range of disciplinary backgrounds. Presenters and attendees had opportunities to contribute to, and benefit from, state of the art Digital Humanities scholarship and to shape a discussion of the field’s future. A conference like ours was an important mix of theoretical and practical work and represents an opportunity for wide-ranging dialogue, information gathering, and comparative analysis outside of daily pressures and constraints. The selection of papers published in this special issue fittingly gives an overview of the final programme prepared by the Program committee under the leadership of Diane Jakacki. There will also be a separate publication of posters presented at the conference for the first time this year (to be published on the Érudit platform in the fall of 2019).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5010.310

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueDigital Scholarship in the HumanitiesFrench-language works237,207