Abstract Statistical Methods for Dating Collections of Historical Documents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem in this thesis was originally motivated by problems presented with docu-ments of Early England Data Set (DEEDS). The central problem with these medieval documents is the lack of methods to assign accurate dates to those documents which bear no date. With the problems of the DEEDS documents in mind, we present two methods to impute missing features of texts. In the first method, we suggest a new class of metrics for measuring distances between texts. We then show how to combine the distances between the texts using statistical smoothing. This method can be adapted to settings where the features of the texts are ordered or unordered categoricals (as in the case of, for example, authorship assignment problems). In the second method, we estimate the probability of occurrences of words in texts using nonparametric regression techniques of local polynomial fitting with ker-nel weight to generalized linear models. We combine the estimated probability of occurrences of words of a text to estimate the probability of occurrence of a text as a function of its feature – the feature in this case being the date in which the text is written. The application and results of our methods to the DEEDS documents are presented. ii Acknowledgements It was the vision of Professor Michael Gervers, director of the DEEDS project at the University of Toronto, to create a centralized database of digitized medieval English manuscripts so that historians could upload via the internet their undated documents in order to have them dated. The idea was to have an automated docu-ment dating system based on sound statistical methodologies. Building a high quality training dataset on which to test the statistical methodologies was not an easy task – it involved many experts of the Latin language and of medieval history, including nu-
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 | 0.025 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".