Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teaching Textual Analysis Using Hypothes.is Martin Danahay (bio) I project selections from the texts onto a screen for close textual analysis in my third-year course on Victorian Gothic literature when we meet in person. The sessions are designed to teach close reading of texts and [End Page 16] how to identify key words, symbols, or themes using quotations rather than paraphrasing—which elides the process of interpretation by substituting the student's language in place of that of the text. The texts that I assign are in the public domain and available on sites like Project Gutenberg, so it's easy to create a small file of key passages. Like Montgomery et al. in Ways of Reading, I guide my students through the process of analysis by asking them questions about the text to have them reflect on the process of reading, understanding, and then analyzing the language used by the author. I expect students to quote and discuss key terms, symbols, and images in their papers following the model of our class discussion. I emphasize in my grading rubric that I expect them to provide their own analysis of texts to receive a passing grade; I phrase this as the difference between "why" and "what" in a text and encourage them to avoid paraphrase and summary. In class, I ask: why does a writer use certain words or symbols, or why does a certain event happen in the text? I had to modify this approach when my course went completely online because of the COVID-19 pandemic and I had to find a way to teach close reading online. I held class discussions of general themes in the text via video conference for the first half of a course meeting, and I then switched to Hypothes.is annotation for the second half to conduct real-time online annotation (see web.hypothes.is). The Hypothes.is tool allowed me to incorporate textual analysis into synchronous online meetings. I first created a simple website using Google sites (sites.google.com/view/danahayannotation/home). I uploaded images and copied and pasted selections from the assigned texts for each synchronous online meeting. The assigned texts were Victorian Gothic horror stories that embodied, in their "monsters," deep-seated but largely unacknowledged fears of racial and class others. For the second half of the meeting, students accessed the Google site using the Hypothes.is tool via our learning management system (LMS). The students then started annotating the text, discussing their interpretations with other students and with me via text as they analyzed the author's language in detail. These annotation exercises were not graded but were part of their overall participation mark, which also included posting an analysis in the LMS forum following our class discussion and annotation exercise. I have found that students are very articulate in class discussion, but this does not always carry over into their writing. Annotating a text in Hypothes.is meant that they started the process of articulating their thoughts before writing. To begin annotation, students must select a section of text and then explain why they highlighted the passage. They were encouraged by me to use their insights from the textual analysis in their final papers. The annotations were therefore a prewriting exercise that meant the students would write more developed papers after initially working through their ideas using the Hypothes.is tool. Hypothes.is adds to my tool chest of prewriting exercises, such as brainstorming and free writing.1 [End Page 17] While I have written about the body and class in the text, especially the symbolism of hands in "Dr. Jekyll's Two Bodies," I do not assign the article nor do I initially raise the question of bodies, preferring to allow the students to raise the issue and then help them build on their insights. I am not aiming in this discussion to cover every possible interpretation of the text but to help students enlarge on their initial reactions, although I can always count on certain issues arising in response to language in the text about the contrast between Dr. Jekyll's "white" and "comely" hand and Mr. Hyde's being of a...
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".