Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 4

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Chapter 6: Supervised and Unsupervised: Approaches to Machine Learning for Textual Entities

Hodel, Tobias·2022·Digital Humanities Research

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

Crossref · 10.14361/9783839455845-007

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

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.