The Relationship Between a Historical Manuscript and its Digital Surrogate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through the digitization of rare or special manuscripts, academics have researched the impact of digitization and its relationship with the physical manuscript itself. Past literature has focused on how the digital can complement the physical, the changing manuscript’s identity when its digitized, and past research around the quality of a digital surrogate. The importance of carefully considering the impact of the quality of a digitized manuscript is essential. However, every edition (physical or digital) changes in some way and moves further from the original, be it an issue with the digitization or pages being removed or altered in the physical manuscript. Though some scholars find that content may be lost when digitized, there can also be more information added by cataloguers. Ultimately, digital surrogates allow for wider access, but their quality must be considered and properly addressed in research. A researcher who is aware of and within their work clearly states the relationship between the digital surrogate and the physical manuscript will find that it is a great support for any researcher.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| 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".