MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297383039 · doi:10.1080/01639374.2022.2124473

Tongue-Tied by Authorities: Library of Congress Vocabularies and the Shakespeare Authorship Question

2022· article· en· W4297383039 on OpenAlexaff
William Boyle, Michael Dudley, Catherine Hatinguais

Bibliographic record

VenueCataloging & Classification Quarterly · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAuthorship Attribution and Profiling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary of congressSubject (documents)ScholarshipPerspective (graphical)CatalogingControlled vocabularySociologyLibrary scienceLinguisticsComputer scienceLawPolitical scienceInformation retrievalPhilosophyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the existence of a vast literature reflecting hundreds of years of scholarship questioning the authorship of the works of Shakespere, the conventional Library of Congress Name Authority File and Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) are unable to accurately describe this literature owing to their assumption that the author was William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon. Adopting a pragmatic, philosophically realist perspective based in social epistemology, this article highlights past and current deficiencies in the authority records concerning Shakespere and proposes changes that would better reflect the nature and purpose of this literature, as well as the historic signifiers of the named persons in question.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0110.018
Science and technology studies0.0120.030
Scholarly communication0.0190.029
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCataloging & Classification QuarterlySame topicAuthorship Attribution and ProfilingFrench-language works237,207