MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416570569 · doi:10.5334/johd.383

Digital Humanities Training and Workshops: Anonymized Survey Results

2025· article· en· W4416570569 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Bridget Moynihan, Laura Estill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Open Humanities Data · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaSt. Francis Xavier UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsCertificateQualitative propertyDigital humanitiesSurvey data collectionDigital mediaComputer-assisted web interviewingQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Survey on Digital Humanities/Digital Skills Workshops (n = 162) was open from March 11, 2023 to April 8, 2023 as a project under the Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE.ca, PI: Ray Siemens) partnership, with support from the Canadian Certificate in Digital Humanities/Certificat canadien en Humanités Numériques (https://ccdhhn.ca/, PI: Laura Estill). This bilingual (English and French) online survey collected qualitative and quantitative responses through SurveyMonkey from respondents who had attended, taught, and/or organized at least one digital humanities (DH) workshop in the period 2019–2023, as well as respondents who decided not to participate in workshops during that period. Aggregated quantitative and anonymized qualitative survey data is available through the St. Francis Xavier University Dataverse, hosted on Borealis, the Canadian Dataverse Repository. This dataset is of potential use to those involved in DH workshops and/or in DH pedagogy more broadly.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.119
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.119
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.007

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 head0.364
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.017 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Open Humanities DataSame topicDigital Humanities and ScholarshipFrench-language works237,207