MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319597719 · doi:10.5334/johd.95

MultiHATHI: A Complete Collection of Multilingual Prose Fiction in the HathiTrust Digital Library

2023· article· en· W4319597719 on OpenAlexaff
Sil Hamilton, Andrew Piper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Open Humanities Data · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBespokeMetadataComputer scienceDigital libraryClassifier (UML)English languageWorld Wide WebInformation retrievalNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsLiteratureArtPoetry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset provides detailed metadata on ca. 10.2 million works of fiction and non-fiction written after 1799 in 521 different languages available in the HathiTrust Digital Library. The dataset bolsters the May 2022 Hathifile by supplying missing predicted fiction tags with a bespoke BERT-based multilingual classifier. Our classifier completes the catalogue with an additional 400,000 non-English volumes predicted to be works of fiction, capturing 95% of all works presently provided by HathiTrust. We provide each work with metadata including the work’s genre at the level of fiction or non-fiction, length in pages, original language, and the year the work was published. With a total page count of ca. 1.4 billion pages, our dataset provides researchers with a substantial source of non-English modern literature. We also present insight into how multilingual classifiers can be trained with monolingual data, itself a discovery with implications for the study of lower resource languages. We hope our provisions will accelerate empirical research into non-English prose and literature.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.027

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Open Humanities DataSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207