Large Scale Genealogical Information Extraction From Handwritten Quebec Parish Records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents a complete workflow designed for extracting information from Quebec handwritten parish registers. The acts in these documents contain individual and family information highly valuable for genetic, demographic and social studies of the Quebec population. From an image of parish records, our workflow is able to identify the acts and extract personal information. The workflow is divided into successive steps: page classification, text line detection, handwritten text recognition, named entity recognition and act detection and classification. For all these steps, different machine learning models are compared. Once the information is extracted, validation rules designed by experts are then applied to standardize the extracted information and ensure its consistency with the type of act (birth, marriage, and death). This validation step is able to reject records that are considered invalid or merged. The full workflow has been used to process over two million pages of Quebec parish registers from the 19-20th centuries. On a sample comprising 65% of registers, 3.2 million acts were recognized. Verification of the birth and death acts from this sample shows that 74% of them are considered complete and valid. These records will be integrated into the BALSAC database and linked together to recreate family and genealogical relations at large scale.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".