The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Chapter 6: Supervised and Unsupervised: Approaches to Machine Learning for Textual Entities
Abstract
Applications that feed text into machine learning algorithms have existed for more than a decade. But it took multiple developments to make machine learning an exciting methodological approach to questions grounded in the humanities. The latest developments in handwritten text recognition (HTR) show the capabilities of supervised deep learning. However, the success of the technology comes with a price: It generates a set of methods that are complicated to grasp in theory and difficult to train algorithms in, algorithms that are not comprehensible to humans at all. By focusing on the two most frequently used approaches in machine learning (unsupervised and supervised), this paper lays out ways to critically use machine learning algorithms in the humanities. At the same time, we argue that these approaches help us to understand the epistemological assumptions of our disciplines and our methods. Topic modeling used on large corpora of text leads to new insights into what topics occur, as well as the tendencies of a corpus. The approach uses unsupervised machine learning, through which a set of algorithms identify what words appear together frequently and so might indicate a topic. Topic modeling puts scholars at the end of the process, where they must still interpret the output of the algorithms. In deciphering handwriting, supervised deep learning approaches have led to astonishing results, but also to new problems induced by the algorithm. The algorithm tries to adapt to the d…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Therefore, these models result in being biased not only from a linguistic aspect but also in relation to the characteristics of handwriting (Hodel, 2022, p. 169).”
From Benchmarking large language models for handwritten text recognition (2025) · cites this paper as Hodel, 2022, p. 169
Citations
Cited by
Benchmarking large language models for handwritten text recognition
Crosilla, G., Klic, L., & Colavizza, G. (2025) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/jd-03-2025-0082 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Hodel, T.
- Venue
- Digital Humanities Research
- Published
- 2022-04-04
- Pages
- 157-178
- ISSN
- 2747-5476
- 2749-1986
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.