The Challenges of HTR Model Training: Feedback from the Project Donner le gout de l'archive a l'ere numerique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The arrival of handwriting recognition technologies offers new possibilities for research in heritage studies. However, it is now necessary to reflect on the experiences and the practices developed by research teams. Our use of the Transkribus platform since 2018 has led us to search for the most significant ways to improve the performance of our handwritten text recognition (HTR) models which are made to transcribe French handwriting dating from the 17th century. This article therefore reports on the impacts of creating transcribing protocols, using the language model at full scale and determining the best way to use base models in order to help increase the performance of HTR models. Combining all of these elements can indeed increase the performance of a single model by more than 20% (reaching a Character Error Rate below 5%). This article also discusses some challenges regarding the collaborative nature of HTR platforms such as Transkribus and the way researchers can share their data generated in the process of creating or training handwritten text recognition models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".