比较网络分析作为编辑分析任务的新方法:以拉比文献中的密西拿和托塞塔为例

IF 0.7 3区 文学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
A. Zadok, M. Zhitomirsky-Geffet, Jonathan Schler, Binyamin Katzoff
{"title":"比较网络分析作为编辑分析任务的新方法:以拉比文献中的密西拿和托塞塔为例","authors":"A. Zadok, M. Zhitomirsky-Geffet, Jonathan Schler, Binyamin Katzoff","doi":"10.1093/llc/fqad038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Social network analysis of characters in historical works is a popular research methodology in the study of historical literature. This article proposes using this methodology to characterize and comparatively analyze editing styles of similar historical literary works to determine whether they were edited by the same hand. To that end, the study proposes constructing a network of characters for each of the works being studied and to compute standard statistical measures for these networks, thus producing a network-based profile for the editing style of each work, which can be compared to the profiles of various other works. To determine the effectiveness of this new approach, it was tested on two similar works from the realm of Rabbinic literature—the Mishnah and the Tosefta. Our findings show that despite the abundant structural, thematic, and linguistic similarities of the works, their network-based profiles demonstrated clear differences between them with respect to various parameters, like the degree of connectivity, density, and centrality of the networks and their communities, and also with respect to the usage of different types of relationships in each network. These differences are reflected in the network features of the works, rather than in their texts, and so it would be difficult to identify them using direct stylometric analysis on the texts of the works, especially given the stylistic and thematic similarity between them. The approach presented in this article forms a basis for developing automatic classifiers to identify different editors and editing styles based on works’ network-based profiles.","PeriodicalId":45315,"journal":{"name":"Digital Scholarship in the Humanities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative network analysis as a new approach to the editorship profiling task: A case study of the Mishnah and Tosefta from Rabbinic literature\",\"authors\":\"A. Zadok, M. Zhitomirsky-Geffet, Jonathan Schler, Binyamin Katzoff\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/llc/fqad038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Social network analysis of characters in historical works is a popular research methodology in the study of historical literature. This article proposes using this methodology to characterize and comparatively analyze editing styles of similar historical literary works to determine whether they were edited by the same hand. To that end, the study proposes constructing a network of characters for each of the works being studied and to compute standard statistical measures for these networks, thus producing a network-based profile for the editing style of each work, which can be compared to the profiles of various other works. To determine the effectiveness of this new approach, it was tested on two similar works from the realm of Rabbinic literature—the Mishnah and the Tosefta. Our findings show that despite the abundant structural, thematic, and linguistic similarities of the works, their network-based profiles demonstrated clear differences between them with respect to various parameters, like the degree of connectivity, density, and centrality of the networks and their communities, and also with respect to the usage of different types of relationships in each network. These differences are reflected in the network features of the works, rather than in their texts, and so it would be difficult to identify them using direct stylometric analysis on the texts of the works, especially given the stylistic and thematic similarity between them. The approach presented in this article forms a basis for developing automatic classifiers to identify different editors and editing styles based on works’ network-based profiles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Digital Scholarship in the Humanities\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Digital Scholarship in the Humanities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqad038\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digital Scholarship in the Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqad038","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

历史作品人物的社会网络分析是历史文学研究中常用的一种研究方法。本文提出用这一方法对同类历史文学作品的编辑风格进行表征和比较分析,以确定它们是否出自同一作者之手。为此,本研究建议为所研究的每一部作品构建一个人物网络,并为这些网络计算标准的统计措施,从而为每一部作品的编辑风格产生一个基于网络的档案,可以与其他各种作品的档案进行比较。为了确定这种新方法的有效性,我们对来自拉比文学领域的两本类似的作品——《密西拿》和《Tosefta》进行了测试。我们的研究结果表明,尽管这些作品在结构、主题和语言上有着丰富的相似性,但它们基于网络的概况在各种参数上表现出明显的差异,比如网络及其社区的连通性程度、密度和中心性,以及每个网络中不同类型关系的使用。这些差异反映在作品的网络特征上,而不是在它们的文本中,因此很难通过对作品文本的直接文体分析来识别它们,特别是考虑到它们之间的风格和主题相似性。本文中提出的方法为开发自动分类器奠定了基础,以根据作品的网络配置文件识别不同的编辑和编辑风格。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative network analysis as a new approach to the editorship profiling task: A case study of the Mishnah and Tosefta from Rabbinic literature
Social network analysis of characters in historical works is a popular research methodology in the study of historical literature. This article proposes using this methodology to characterize and comparatively analyze editing styles of similar historical literary works to determine whether they were edited by the same hand. To that end, the study proposes constructing a network of characters for each of the works being studied and to compute standard statistical measures for these networks, thus producing a network-based profile for the editing style of each work, which can be compared to the profiles of various other works. To determine the effectiveness of this new approach, it was tested on two similar works from the realm of Rabbinic literature—the Mishnah and the Tosefta. Our findings show that despite the abundant structural, thematic, and linguistic similarities of the works, their network-based profiles demonstrated clear differences between them with respect to various parameters, like the degree of connectivity, density, and centrality of the networks and their communities, and also with respect to the usage of different types of relationships in each network. These differences are reflected in the network features of the works, rather than in their texts, and so it would be difficult to identify them using direct stylometric analysis on the texts of the works, especially given the stylistic and thematic similarity between them. The approach presented in this article forms a basis for developing automatic classifiers to identify different editors and editing styles based on works’ network-based profiles.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
25.00%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: DSH or Digital Scholarship in the Humanities is an international, peer reviewed journal which publishes original contributions on all aspects of digital scholarship in the Humanities including, but not limited to, the field of what is currently called the Digital Humanities. Long and short papers report on theoretical, methodological, experimental, and applied research and include results of research projects, descriptions and evaluations of tools, techniques, and methodologies, and reports on work in progress. DSH also publishes reviews of books and resources. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities was previously known as Literary and Linguistic Computing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信