Transforming the Vocabulaire de la Sigillographie into a Semantic Web Resource
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the current situation in the area of digital sigillography that focuses on creating data sets. It observes the possibility of aligning these data sets and suggests developing the Vocabulaire Internationale de la Sigillographie (created in 1990) further for this purpose. It presents the conversion of the printed version into an SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organisation System) resource. It highlights the opportunities offered by Semantic Web technologies, which can begin with sharing descriptive vocabularies. Data interchange between the various European sigillographic resources can be further promoted by shared semantics. This paper proposes a CIDOC-CRM-compliant OWL ontology built on top of the VIS. This is organized around the events of creating the matrix, applying the matrix, handling the impression (e.g., destroying, cutting off), conservation and description. The proposed basic entities map well to existing major seal databases, with the effect that the French Sigilla and the British DigiSig database could merge, and a common European database of medieval seals seems possible.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it