MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283792752 · doi:10.16995/dscn.8091

Modelling of a Heterogeneous Corpus: The Example of Chapbook Literature

2022· article· en· W4283792752 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elina Leblanc

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Studies / Le champ numérique · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de Genève
KeywordsMetadataLibrary sciencePanoramaVariety (cybernetics)HumanitiesSociologyArtWorld Wide WebComputer scienceVisual artsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article proposes an analysis of Spanish chapbook literature from the digital perspective. It provides a systematic study of the metadata and services selected by seventeen digital libraries to model their collections.In the first part, we propose an overview of those libraries. Their great variety reflects the heterogeneity of this popular literature, which is at the margin of studies on printed productions, and escapes the classifications traditionally used for books. In the second part, we describe four different strategies used by digital libraries to model this type of content, focusing either 1) on the document as an archive to be preserved, 2) on the document as the result of an editorial process, 3) on the text, or 4) on the illustrations. Our objective is thus to outline a digital model for these types of documents and to help future projects in defining their own offer of services.This article is part of the research project "Untangling the cordel / Démêler le cordel / Desenrollando el cordel (2020-2023)" financed by the Philanthropic Sandoz-Monique de Meuron Family Foundation and directed by the professor Constance Carta (University of Geneva).Cet article propose une analyse de la littérature de colportage espagnole au prisme du numérique, en étudiant de manière systématique les métadonnées et les services sélectionnés par dix-sept bibliothèques numériques pour modéliser leurs collections.Dans un premier temps, nous proposons un panorama de ces bibliothèques, dont la grande variété reflète celle de cette littérature populaire, à la marge des études sur les productions imprimées et qui échappe aux classifications traditionnellement employées pour le livre. Dans un second temps, nous décrivons quatre stratégies différentes employées par les bibliothèques numériques pour modéliser ce type de contenus, en mettant l’accent soit sur le document en tant qu’archives à conserver, soit sur le document en tant que résultat d’un processus éditorial, soit sur le texte, soit sur l’illustration. Notre objectif est ainsi d’esquisser les contours d’un modèle numérique pour ce type de documents et d’aider de futurs projets dans la définition de leur propre offre de services.Cet article s’inscrit dans le cadre du projet de recherche « Démêler le cordel / Desenrollando el cordel / Untangling the cordel (2020-2023) » financé par la Fondation philanthropique Famille Sandoz-Monique de Meuron et dirigé par la professeure Constance Carta (Université de Genève).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.142 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Studies / Le champ numériqueSame topicDigital Humanities and ScholarshipFrench-language works237,207