Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both relational databases (RDBs) and XML have strengths and weaknesses as data storage and modeling systems. Most researchers working with historical and literary data in the humanities would argue for the superiority of XML, since it allows unlimited nesting, linking, and complexity. Relational database proponents claim superior querying and processing speed, although recent advances in XML languages and tools have eroded that advantage. Nevertheless, RDBs remain popular and are widely used, particularly in the early stages of projects where resources and metadata are being collected, and projects may end up with both an RDB and an XML document collection. Programmers must then integrate these distinct forms of data when building project outputs. This article discusses the Digital Victorian Periodical Poetry (DVPP) project, where metadata on about 15,000 poems from nineteenth-century periodicals is captured in a MySQL database, and periodically exported to create a TEI file for each poem. Many of the poems are then transcribed and encoded. The canonical source of metadata is the RDB, while the canonical source of textual data is the TEI file. Metadata in the TEI files must be periodically updated from the RDB, without disturbing the textual encoding. Changes to the RDB data may result in changes to the id and filename of the related TEI file, so any existing TEI data is migrated to a new file, and the Subversion repository must be appropriately updated. All of this is done with XSLT and Ant.
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 | 0.033 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.055 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.041 |
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".