Genres of Digital Humanities Scholarship: Are We There Yet?
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
Abstract: Systems of knowledge organization, discovery, and digital preservation in academic and research libraries tend to omit varieties of digital scholarship that defy conventions of research genres. This paper considers how genre theory can deepen our understanding of the state of play in digital humanities: whether there are useful genres emerging or solidifying in the field and what their implications are for libraries. Through a critical review of digital humanities discourse, deploying the lens of genre theory, this paper develops a framework for characterizing emergent forms of digital humanities scholarship. This review highlights a range of epistemological and communicative purposes of new forms of digital scholarship—for providing evidence, conveying arguments, and constructing user experiences. The paper considers how improved understanding of digital humanities genres may support libraries as they help construct, steward, and provide access to a more diversified landscape of creative scholarship.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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