What We Learned About the Humanities from a Study of Thousands of Newspaper Articles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How might a computational analysis of the humanities in public discourse inform future efforts in humanities education and research? This question motivates this short essay; here, we reflect on key arguments from our longer article “The Humanities in Public: A Computational Analysis of US National and Campus Newspapers” with an eye toward imagining possible use cases and applications for our findings. After summarizing our main claims, we suggest ways of reframing or revaluing advocacy for the humanities based on this research. These include delineating concrete examples of the relationship between humanistic knowledge and the public interest, shifting institutional and disciplinary priorities toward forms of labor that engage a wider variety of publics, and understanding the connections between, rather than focusing on competition among, the humanities and the sciences.
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 | 0.014 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".