From April 23rd to 25th 2018, the CLiGS grouped welcomes two researchers from Spain: Helena Bermúdez Sabel and Pablo Ruiz Fabo from the Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) in Madrid came to Würzburg to give a workshop on Linked Open Data (LOD) and to present their project POSTDATA (“Poetry Standardization and Linked Open Data”). As part of their visit, they will hold an evening lecture entitled “Linked Open Data: Unchain your Corpora”. The main goals of the workshop, which has been organized by José Calvo Tello, are to exchange experiences in modelling and creating literary corpora in the POSTDATA and CLiGS projects, as well as to discuss possibilities of using LOD approaches to enrich and interlink these data. LOD Workshop: “Literary corpora unchained” – (almost) live! weiterlesen
In recent years I have published a couple of posts about the participants at DH conferences: HDH 2015 and DHd 2016. It was about time to publish about the DH conference. So let’s go directly to the visualization and I will explain the details later:
So, what is in these bars? Each author (regardless of how many proposals or roles they were involved in) at the conference has been counted once using the HTML view of conftool; the data has been grouped by country of their current position (cleaning this information semi-automatically) and the results are plotted as bars. Also, the continent defines the color of the bars. So, some details: if a conference paper had 7 co-authors, each of them is counted once. So the countries with a bigger tradition of having multiple co-authors are more likely to appear over-represented. On the other hand, the very active people that are part of several papers and panels only count once. I think both criteria balance the results at the end.
Using the data, the results show different group of countries:
- The lead country is USA (not a surprise)
- After that, we see a group of three countries with a lot more researchers than the rest: Germany (123), Canada (92) and the UK (73). I didn’t expect to find Germany in the second position
- The next country has less than the half of the researchers: France with 36, followed by Switzerland, Netherlands and Japan; all of them very closely together.
- The fourth group is built of countries with more then ten researchers: Ireland, Taiwan, Russia, Austria, Poland, Mexico, Spain, and followed very closely (but with less than 10 people) by Belgium
- After that we can consider the rest of the countries as part of the long tail with researchers between 6 and 1 (a single country with this value: Denmark!)
- Can we think for a moment about the whole region of the world that is just not represented at all in these bars?
There are other aspects that are remarkable: Italy had only 3 authors (!). China had only 1, while Taiwan had 15. There is not a single person from the Arabic World. Actually not a single person coming from the region between Morocco and Pakistan. Not a single soul from Central America, Carribbean or Andes.
Please, don’t take this a a criticism of the conference. I am trying to understand better our community and am simply verbalizing some surprises. And remember that these references of the countries are not the country where the author was born, but where they are currently working. For example, in these bars I am counted as an author from Germany, although my only passport is printed by the Reino de España.
Now, we can group the information by continent and see how they are represented:
A word of notice about how I divided America: there is no satisfying decision about it. If we group USA and Canada together to see better how Latin America is represented, then we can’t use the concept of North America since Mexico is also part of North America. So I decided to group together all American countries. Anyway there were only 5: USA (313), Canada (92), Mexico (11), Brazil (2) and Argentina (2). So Latin America would have a bar twice as large as the one of Africa.
There are two countries split between Europe and Asia: Turkey (6) and Russia (12). In these cases I decided to follow the rule „put the doubts in the smaller category so they don’t get lost in the large one“.
Even if we only sum USA+Canada (313 + 92 = 405) and make the biggest possible version of Europe with Russia and Turkey (385 + 12 + 6 = 403), the North Americans are still the largest group by literally a couple of people. What is clear is that the two largest groups of authors at the DH Conference are basically composed by people working in Europe and Canada+USA. This is not a surprise, although I didn’t expect that the number of Europeans would be almost as big as the number of North Americans, even when the conference is on their side of the Atlantic.
Let’s see what will happen next year in DH2018 Mexico! Will there be more authors working in different countries of Latin America? From other parts of the world? The deadline will probably be in some months, so, stop procrastinating with posts about DH participants and let’s work on the next proposal!
Some weeks ago we published some visualizations of the data of the attendants at the DHd 2016 that we take from the program of the conference. The organization of the conference liked what we did, and while speaking with them, I pointed out that I had the feeling that significantly fewer women were at the conference if compared to the Spanish DH Conference 2015 (in which the gender distribution of the speakers were more or less 50%). So the organization gave us more data about the participants, of course anonymized, and for that we are very thankful.
So, let’s start with the basic gender question. Was I supposing correctly, that there were more men than women?
In the context of the Junge Forum Romanistik, there were workshops with a focus on digital tools in literary and linguistic studies organized by CLiGS together with the FJR and the AG Digitale Romanistik. In one of the workshops, Thomas Krefeld and Stephan Lücke presented the project Verba Alpina:
This project studies dialectal data from the very multinational area of the Alps. The classical dialectal projects took a national approach that hides the linguistic processes that go across the border. It impressed me for three reasons: two very simple and elegant solutions that they are applying in the project and how open the data and the tool are.
Verba Alpina: open data + elegant solutions weiterlesen
The CliGS group had the opportunity of being at the German Digital Humanities Conference in Leipzig (DHd 2016). As we did with the DH Spanish Conference of last year, we decided to take the data of the program to see in detail some general information of the people talking at the conference.
The data used in this post come all from the conftool of the conference. In that website is also the information about the pre-conference workshop and the EADH-Day. It is important to have clear that this represent how visible are in the program countries, cities and institutions, and not about all the participants. We are only taking the data from the people that presented something (conference paper, poster, session…) and if someone took several roles during the conference, his information is also repeated.
I took the HTML, I cleaned it with scripts as best as I could; the tricky part was with this kind of things:
As we can see, the relationship between person and institution is not one to one. I checked the results of some of the most complicated cases and the scripts did a good job, but I wouldn’t dare to plunge my hand in the fire for this data 😉 If there are some errors and you want to give a try to clean the data in a better way, let us know with a comment! For the visualisation I have used the very user-friendly and intuitive tool RAW.
Lets start with the countries, in which country do the people in the program work? Results:
Well, not a huge surprise that Germany is the first country (428). Now the difference between Austria (37) and Switzerland (13) I didn’t expect. It is interesting to see how Italy and the Netherlands are well represented, specially if we compare it with other European countries, specially France, United Kingdom, Spain, Poland…
Lets go a step deeper in the data. And, now, a word of explanation: apparently the participants of some universities are more homogeneous when naming their institutions as other: while Universität Paderborn didn’t have any variant, there was a lot of variants in some Universities, example: Universität Göttingen, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, GA Universität Göttingen, Uni Göttingen… So I tried to curate the data the best way I could and searched for the locations of many institutions and I didn’t know:
Berlin, Leipzig, Göttingen, Würzburg, Wien, Darmstadt, Stuttgart… And from that we can go a step deeper and see the different institutions in each city. Because while some cities like Berlin, Wien or Göttingen contain a great number of institutions working in the Digital Humanities, other cities like Frankfurt or Würzburg are represented by a single institution.
So the data after institutions looks like this:
After the University of Leipzig, the one holding the conference, the best represented institutions in the program are the Universities from Würzbug, Darmstadt, HU-Berlin, Stuttgart, BBAW, ÖAW, NSUB-Göttingen, Köln…
The junior research group „Computational Literary Genre Stylistics“ (CLiGS) is organizing a hands-on workshop on „Advanced Methods in Stylometry“ which will take place at Würzburg University, Germany, on December 9-11. (All further information will be posted here; see bottom of this post for practical information.)
The workshop targets doctoral students in literary studies already familiar with computational text analysis and interested in using specific, advanced methods for their use-cases and research questions. The aims of the workshop are to help participants move beyond out-of-the-box functionality in stylo, either using advanced functionality in stylo or using specific Python packages. Participants are encouraged to bring their own datasets to the workshop.
The workshop will be taught by Maciej Eder (Paedagogical University, Kraków, Poland), Mike Kestemont (University of Antwerp, Belgium), and Jeremi Ochab (Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland), three experts in stylometry. It is being coordinated by Christof Schöch. The workshop will have three parts, adresssing the following issues:
- The first part of the workshop will focus on designing and implementing workflows in R, aimed at performing large-scale custom stylometric experiments. To this end, a few low-level functions of the package ’stylo‘, as well as a number of generic R functions and routines will be introduced.
- The second part will offer an introduction to the popular Machine Learning toolkit for Python: sklearn (http://scikit-learn.org/). The workshop will focus on sklearn’s powerful suite of text processing algorithms. Using relevant examples from stylometry, it will be demonstrated how sklearn equips users with an arsenal of easily available (un)supervised machine learning routines.
- The third part will be an introduction to models of complex networks as well as to the most prominent results on empirical networks. They will cover the most relevant graph characteristics, and will further expand to graph-based unsupervised clustering techniques, so-called community detection algorithms.
The workshop requires familiarity with the fundamental assumptions of computational text analysis including stylometry as well as solid competencies in using R and Python. If you are interested in joining us for the workshop, please send an application to firstname.lastname@example.org until November 20, 2015, specifying why you would like to participate and how you have achieved your current level of competency in stylometry.
The workshop will start on Wednesday, December 9 at 9:30 am and end on Friday, December 11 at 1:00pm. Participation is free except for a small contribution for drinks and snacks during the breaks. The working language of the workshop will be English, but text collections used may be in the language of your choice. Participants are expected to bring their own laptop computers with the latest version of R (with stylo) as well as Python (version 3, with numpy, pandas, sklearn) installed.
The workshop is organized by the CLiGS group with funding from the German Federal Ministry for Research and Education (BMBF).
- The workshop will take place at Würzburg University, Campus Hubland, Philosophisches Institut, Building 8, room 8.E.18. The pointer on this map points there.
- The closest bus stop is „Philosophisches Institut“. From Würzburg Hauptbahnhof, buses 14, 114 and 214 take you there.
Am 29. September 2014 findet der erste Workshop der Nachwuchsgruppe „Computergestützte literarische Gattungsstilistik“ am Lehrstuhl für Computerphilologie der Universität Würzburg statt. Interessierte KollegInnen und Studierende sind herzlich zur Teilnahme eingeladen.
Der Workshop hat ein dreifaches Anliegen: Erstens, mit beteiligten und assoziierten WissenschaftlerInnen aus Literaturwissenschaft, Linguistik und Informatik das Rahmenthema der Nachwuchsgruppe zu diskutieren. Zweitens, sich über die geplanten Einzelprojekte der DoktorandInnen auszutauschen. Und drittens, durch eine kleine Anzahl allgemeinerer Vorträge bestimmte Aspekte des Rahmenthemas der Gruppe aus literaturwissenschaftlicher, linguistischer und stilometrischer Perspektive zu vertiefen.
Workshop „Computergestützte literarische Gattungsstilistik“ weiterlesen