MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402888464 · doi:10.16995/dscn.11069

Taking the Middle Road: Reflections on Mixed Methodology within the Digital Humanities

2024· article· en· W4402888464 on OpenAlexaffvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Studies / Le champ numérique · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the rapidly evolving field of digital humanities, methodological considerations, especially the interplay between “distant reading” and “close reading,” play a prominent role. This paper, presented against the backdrop of these two critical approaches, undertakes a comprehensive exploration of reflections on mixed methodology that have emerged within the field, emphasizing calls for a blending of distant reading and close reading. Starting with an evaluation of the origins of such terminology in the field, the paper elucidates the ongoing debates surrounding the tensions between these two reading paradigms. Highlighting the multifaceted terrain of these debates, the paper enumerates the terminology on such methodology that has been explored and expanded by digital humanists. Furthermore, through analyzing a number of methodological reflections, the affordances and the practical implications of a mixed methodology in computational literary studies are discussed. Starting from bringing distant reading and close reading together in the research process, the focus shifts from a mere juxtaposition of these two reading modalities to a broader contemplation of the objects of study in digital humanities projects. Then, moving from scale to scope, collaboration emerges as an integral element in the discourse. Recognizing both its opportunities and inherent challenges, the paper examines the need for collaboration between scholars from different disciplines and explores the emergence of mixed methods in a collaborative context. The need to employ both distant reading and close reading in such context is formulated as a way to appeal to more traditional humanists. In its conclusion, the article heralds the significance of “alien reading,” emphasizing the need for understanding machine reading as a distinct, albeit integral, component in the digital humanities’ tapestry, especially in the age of AI and LLMs. Dans le domaine en rapide évolution des humanités numériques, les considérations méthodologiques, en particulier l’interaction entre le « distant reading » et le « close reading », occupent une place prépondérante. Cet article, présenté dans le contexte de ces deux approches critiques, propose une exploration approfondie des réflexions sur la méthodologie mixte qui ont émergé dans ce domaine, en mettant l’accent sur les appels à combiner la lecture de loine et la lecture de près. En commençant par une évaluation des origines de cette terminologie dans le domaine, l’article éclaire les débats en cours autour des tensions entre ces deux paradigmes de lecture. Soulignant la diversité de ces débats, l'article répertorie les terminologies liées à ces méthodologies, explorées et développées par les humanistes numériques. De plus, à travers l’analyse de plusieurs réflexions méthodologiques, les avantages et les implications pratiques d’une méthodologie mixte en études littéraires computationnelles sont discutés. En partant du rapprochement entre lecture de loine et lecture de près dans le processus de recherche, l’attention passe d’une simple juxtaposition de ces deux modalités de lecture à une réflexion plus large sur les objets d’étude des projets en humanités numériques. Ensuite, en évoluant de l’échelle à l’étendue, la collaboration apparaît comme un élément central dans le discours. Reconnaissant à la fois ses opportunités et ses défis inhérents, l’article examine la nécessité d’une collaboration entre chercheurs de disciplines différentes et explore l’émergence de méthodes mixtes dans un contexte collaboratif. Le besoin d’employer à la fois la lecture distante et la lecture rapprochée dans ce contexte est formulé comme un moyen de s’adresser aux humanistes plus traditionnels. En conclusion, l’article souligne l’importance de la « alien reading » (ou « lecture étrangère »), en mettant en avant la nécessité de comprendre la lecture par la machine comme une composante distincte mais intégrale dans le paysage des humanités numériques, notamment à l’ère de l’IA et des modèles de langage étendus (LLM).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.358
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.015 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Studies / Le champ numériqueSame topicDigital Humanities and ScholarshipFrench-language works237,207