Conversation, Collaboration, Credit: The Graduate Researcher in the Digital Scholarly Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The humanities are undergoing profound shifts in the nature of the processes used to produce scholarly work. As this migration to digital practices is increasingly accepted at universities and public institutions, such bodies have realised they must develop consistent policies governing the practice, implementation, and evaluation of digital scholarship. The formal debate about these processes in relation to faculty and administration is well underway. Similar discussions from the perspective of graduate students working on large-scale, collaborative digital projects has until now been limited to passing conversations at conferences and intradepartmental gestures, with occasional online discussions occurring in venues frequented by early career digital practitioners. This contribution revisits and rehearses, in textual form, issues raised and discussions had at a roundtable at the 2012 conference of the Canadian Society for Digital Humanities devoted to exploring the role of graduate students in the forming digital scholarly environment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.033 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".