Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the turn of a quarter of a century since nascency, the thematic issue of our review is dedicated to a central problem of the historian’s work, that is the issue of primary sources, from the perspective of new methods of research and their interpretation. By this initiative, we wanted to extend an invitation to a reflection on the current relevance of history and its opening towards the application of some new methods of investigation suggested by the general evolution of knowledge. Of course, the sources of history essentially are still texts, artefacts and facts, and their older differentiation in traditions and vestiges is still timely, implying interesting theoretical debates, but the manner in which the researchers relate to these is permanently changing. Our review, after surpassing the search from the incipient period and, in an emphasised manner, after moving on to the exclusive publishing of thematic volumes, distinguished itself through the proposal of such new perspectives of investigating the past, which imply resorting to new sources or re-evaluating the interpretations bestowed on the traditional sources. This was the reason for organising a methodological workshop dedicated to new themes, sources and methods in historical research, which took place in Alba Iulia, on June 4 of the current year, which also proposed a suitable reflection on the tendencies of the Romanian historiography of the last three decades and its perspectives. The present volume contains part of the communications presented on that occasion, although others are relevant as well, but which could not be included in the volume. Conducted in two major sections – archaeology and cultural heritage and history – the workshop mentioned created the occasion for debates on some diverse methods of research applied to the sources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.327 | 0.181 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".