Unlocking the archives: Using large language models to transcribe handwritten historical documents
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 study demonstrates that Large Language Models (LLMs) can transcribe historical handwritten documents with significantly higher accuracy than specialized Handwritten Text Recognition (HTR) software, while being faster and more cost-effective. We introduce an open-source software tool called Transcription Pearl that leverages these capabilities to automatically transcribe and correct batches of handwritten documents using commercially available multimodal LLMs from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google. In tests on a diverse corpus of 18th/19th century English language handwritten documents, LLMs achieved Character Error Rates (CER) of 5.7 to 7% and Word Error Rates (WER) of 8.9 to 15.9%, improvements of 14% and 32% respectively over specialized state-of-the-art HTR software like Transkribus. Most significantly, when LLMs were then used to correct those transcriptions as well as texts generated by conventional HTR software, they achieved near-human levels of accuracy, that is CERs as low as 1.8% and WERs of 3.5%. The LLMs also completed these tasks 50 times faster and at approximately 1/50th the cost of proprietary HTR programs. These results demonstrate that when LLMs are incorporated into software tools like Transcription Pearl, they provide an accessible, fast, and highly accurate method for mass transcription of historical handwritten documents, significantly streamlining the digitization process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it