If the Sources Could Talk: Evaluating Large Language Models for Research Assistance in History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent advent of powerful Large-Language Models (LLM) provides a new conversational form of inquiry into historical memory (or, training data, in this case). We show that by augmenting such LLMs with vector embeddings from highly specialized academic sources, a conversational methodology can be made accessible to historians and other researchers in the Humanities. Concretely, we evaluate and demonstrate how LLMs have the ability of assisting researchers while they examine a customized corpora of different types of documents, including, but not exclusive to: (1). primary sources, (2). secondary sources written by experts, and (3). the combination of these two. Compared to established search interfaces for digital catalogues, such as metadata and full-text search, we evaluate the richer conversational style of LLMs on the performance of two main types of tasks: (1). question-answering, and (2). extraction and organization of data. We demonstrate that LLMs semantic retrieval and reasoning abilities on problem-specific tasks can be applied to large textual archives that have not been part of the its training data. Therefore, LLMs can be augmented with sources relevant to specific research projects, and can be queried privately by researchers.
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 | 0.019 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".