Neither Corpus Nor Edition: Building a Pipeline to Make Data Analysis Possible on Medieval Arabic Commentary Traditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have built a suite of tools in Python to proficiently analyze text reuse and intertextuality for a specific kind of set of medieval Arabic texts (commentaries) available in print. We take these printed editions, scan them, pre-process the images, give it to an OCR engine, clean the results, and store it in a data structure that mimics the explicit intertextual relation the texts have, and continue to perform data analysis on it. Digital approaches to medieval Arabic texts have either been at the micro-level in what has become known as a ‘digital edition’, i.e. the digital representation of one text, densely annotated, most commonly in TEI-XML, or it has been done at the macro-level in what is called a ‘digital corpus’, consisting of thousands of loosely encoded and sparsely annotated plain text files, accompanied by an entire infrastructure and high-performing software to perform broadly scoped queries. The micro-level generally is at the level of tens of thousands of words while the macro-level can be at the level of over a billion words. The micro-level is explicitly designed to be human readable first, while the macro-level is built to be machine readable first. At the micro-level, every little detail needs to be correct and in order, while at the macro-level a fairly large margin of error is still negligible as a mere rounding error. Amidst these levels we have been seeking a meso-level of digital analysis: neither edition nor corpus, but rather a group of texts at the level of hundreds of thousands to millions of words, with a small but perceptible margin of error, and a light but noticeable level of annotations, principally geared towards machine readability, but with ample opportunity for visual inspection and manual correction. In this paper we explain the rationale for our approach, the technical achievements it has led us to, and the results we so far obtained.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".