Interim commentary on the Massachusett bible text (currently the Pentateuch, Joshua, and New Testament). Date of commentary:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preliminary remark on the file format: 1. This text has been prepared using the extended (i.e. 8-bit, “IBM”) ASCII character set. Windows editors (word processors) normally use a different character set and will not directly yield a satisfactory result unless the file is imported as an ASCII file. The ODT files should be satisfactory for editors that accept them. 2. There are (DOS) lines of length greater than 80 characters, which some editors will not digest, or will reduce to a byte-size of that order of magnitude, usually by the insertion of characters marking the ends of the lines. If you do not want this to occur, use a file viewer, or an editor that allows a screen-oriented word-wrap. Preliminary remark on the machine-readable bible text: This text has been prepared under a guiding assumption: that it will be used for computer-aided analysis of the forms of Massachusett, and will be used in conjunction with some more “literal ” version of the printed original. There is then no reason to attempt the reproduction of all aspects of the printed text. As a consequence, each line in the present text (i.e. sequence of characters terminated by an EOL “end of line”, consisting in the DOS version of a carriage return + linefeed sequence, ASCII 13/0D + ASCII 10/0A) represents a verse (rather than a printed line) of the original. (Here I follow the practice of the machine-readable edition of the Old English corpus, prepared at the University of Toronto as part of the preliminaries to the Dictionary of Old English.)
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.056 |
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".