tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8929346053949579231.post5553069252682199550..comments2019-06-09T03:35:31.723-04:00Comments on Sapping Attention: Women in the librariesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8929346053949579231.post-86902527788457621132014-04-17T17:54:33.053-04:002014-04-17T17:54:33.053-04:00nice info Obat Aborsi | Obat Biusnice info <a href="http://obataborsioriginal.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow"><i>Obat Aborsi</i></a> | <a href="http://obatbiusmania.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow"><i>Obat Bius</i></a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8929346053949579231.post-49880130868598136422013-02-15T00:18:23.173-05:002013-02-15T00:18:23.173-05:00I have two iTunes libraries, one on my mother&#39;...I have two iTunes libraries, one on my mother&#39;s computer (that I used to share with her) and a new one on my own computer. Both libraries contain a significant number of songs. Some purchased, some from CDs. I cannot locate all of the CDs from my original iTunes, and would prefer to transfer the music in one easy step. Is this possible?<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://phlebotomytrainingpro.net/nevada/" rel="nofollow">phlebotomy schools in NV</a>Alice annehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06106007750484567313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8929346053949579231.post-19107225598368322402012-06-14T11:27:14.250-04:002012-06-14T11:27:14.250-04:00LibraryThing has done some work on identifying aut...LibraryThing has done some work on identifying author genders, as well, as part of their &quot;<a href="http://www.librarything.com/commonknowledge/" rel="nofollow">Common Knowledge</a> data - I don&#39;t know how easy it is to extract, but apparently it&#39;s been manually recorded for ~400,000 authors..Andrew Grayhttp://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8929346053949579231.post-66302916084988385902012-05-09T21:30:37.781-04:002012-05-09T21:30:37.781-04:00I&#39;ll say only I&#39;m weirdly confident in tha...I&#39;ll say only I&#39;m weirdly confident in that dip, although there are all sorts of reasons to suspect the data (particularly since so much of public-domain stuff is governmental. <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06319/pdf/nsf06319.pdf" rel="nofollow">Pages 16-17 of this NSF report (pdf)</a> give the gory details, but basically--pretty much every field experienced a 25-50% drop in the percentage of female doctorates from 1920 to 1960, in a manner only partly attributable (I believe) to the GI bill.<br /><br />If ever munge in that Harvard Library metadata, it would be easy to check for sure.Ben Schmidthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04856020368342677253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8929346053949579231.post-44482500524004999722012-05-09T20:58:35.688-04:002012-05-09T20:58:35.688-04:00ID may be on the blink, but this is Ted. I think ...ID may be on the blink, but this is Ted.<br /><br />I think the kind of information you&#39;re seeing about presses is already pretty interesting. Not to mention the trajectory of the curve in your first illustration. I can&#39;t believe that dip is real -- but if it were real, that would require a pretty big argument.<br /><br />I&#39;m also very confident that the full-text comparisons you&#39;re working up are going to be interesting. There are some really big questions that can be asked. I&#39;m not even going to say more than that, because I figure you&#39;re already working on it. Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8929346053949579231.post-47544912084912872252012-05-09T15:34:02.585-04:002012-05-09T15:34:02.585-04:001) (With the caveat that maybe it has, in various ...1) (With the caveat that maybe it has, in various places): part of the reason is error tolerances, definitely, and the confusion of imprecision with bias that humanists always bring up against data. Part of it is division of labor--this is more a librarian&#39;s task than a historian&#39;s, but librarians are rightfully wary of doing machine-classification. And part is that it may not be that useful: I don&#39;t have a clever argument I can build around this data at the moment (and indeed, I wouldn&#39;t have done it if I wasn&#39;t headed towards full-text comparisons with it), and there&#39;s not really a venue for &#39;fun facts about author genders&#39;. Particularly because women&#39;s studies is frequently on the individualist side of the structure/agency divide.<br /><br />For 2) Most of that should be in the file I linked, as long as it stays up. If I could pull together a real publishing agenda on this, I&#39;d probably run with it. We&#39;ll see. I don&#39;t totally see a path to pull this from facts to arguments, but maybe that comes.Ben Schmidthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04856020368342677253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8929346053949579231.post-24993106729564622262012-05-09T03:34:50.808-04:002012-05-09T03:34:50.808-04:00Awesome stuff, and I&#39;m confident that this is ...Awesome stuff, and I&#39;m confident that this is only the beginning of what we can get out of broad gender classification of metadata.<br /><br />Two questions. 1) Why do you think people haven&#39;t done this before? Didn&#39;t require digitized text, just metadata -- which we&#39;ve had. My guess would be that error tolerances have been set too low. [&quot;And although the data won&#39;t be perfect, I can&#39;t emphasize the degree to which this doesn&#39;t matter for the sorts of questions that can usefully be asked of it.&quot;]<br /><br />2) Will you at some point make your gender classification public? A list of imputed genders paired to standard volume identifiers and/or author names would do it.<br /><br />I don&#39;t think there&#39;s any rush here: you should feel free to actually publish some results on paper before making that data public. But in the long run, there&#39;s obviously a huge potential here for further work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com
http://sappingattention.blogspot.com/feeds/5553069252682199550/comments/default
sappingattention.blogspot.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-26
17539
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:KAODYFFLVBK7IZOZFJUSESS5ZKBTLRPJ
<urn:uuid:8903a15e-1930-4d41-b384-82a0c9297209>
2019-06-20T09:28:07Z
172.217.7.193
application/atom+xml
sha1:ICULFWTVW27BVZBCB7ZEHWHBSJALWBFW
<urn:uuid:77c16d6f-2974-46e7-b57a-a1d562c2c768>
http://sappingattention.blogspot.com/feeds/5553069252682199550/comments/default
response
<urn:uuid:3531caec-f549-41ea-985c-3dd3c061a413>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-26
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-113-175-32.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/