Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Pre-Editorial Normalization for Automatically Transcribed Medieval Manuscripts in Old French and Latin

Thibault Clérice, Rachel Bawden, Anthony Glaise, Ariane Pinche, David Smith · Feb 14, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Recent advances in Automatic Text Recognition (ATR) have improved access to historical archives, yet a methodological divide persists between palaeographic transcriptions and normalized digital editions. While ATR models trained on more palaeographically-oriented datasets such as CATMuS have shown greater generalizability, their raw outputs remain poorly compatible with most readers and downstream NLP tools, thus creating a usability gap. On the other hand, ATR models trained to produce normalized outputs have been shown to struggle to adapt to new domains and tend to over-normalize and hallucinate. We introduce the task of Pre-Editorial Normalization (PEN), which consists in normalizing graphemic ATR output according to editorial conventions, which has the advantage of keeping an intermediate step with palaeographic fidelity while providing a normalized version for practical usability. We present a new dataset derived from the CoMMA corpus and aligned with digitized Old French and Latin editions using passim. We also produce a manually corrected gold-standard evaluation set. We benchmark this resource using ByT5-based sequence-to-sequence models on normalization and pre-annotation tasks. Our contributions include the formal definition of PEN, a 4.66M-sample silver training corpus, a 1.8k-sample gold evaluation set, and a normalization model achieving a 6.7% CER, substantially outperforming previous models for this task.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

5/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Recent advances in Automatic Text Recognition (ATR) have improved access to historical archives, yet a methodological divide persists between palaeographic transcriptions and normalized digital editions."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Recent advances in Automatic Text Recognition (ATR) have improved access to historical archives, yet a methodological divide persists between palaeographic transcriptions and normalized digital editions."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Recent advances in Automatic Text Recognition (ATR) have improved access to historical archives, yet a methodological divide persists between palaeographic transcriptions and normalized digital editions."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

Medieval

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"Recent advances in Automatic Text Recognition (ATR) have improved access to historical archives, yet a methodological divide persists between palaeographic transcriptions and normalized digital editions."

Reported Metrics

partial

Cer

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Our contributions include the formal definition of PEN, a 4.66M-sample silver training corpus, a 1.8k-sample gold evaluation set, and a normalization model achieving a 6.7% CER, substantially outperforming previous models for this task."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

Medieval

Reported Metrics

cer

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Recent advances in Automatic Text Recognition (ATR) have improved access to historical archives, yet a methodological divide persists between palaeographic transcriptions and normalized digital editions.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Recent advances in Automatic Text Recognition (ATR) have improved access to historical archives, yet a methodological divide persists between palaeographic transcriptions and normalized digital editions.
  • While ATR models trained on more palaeographically-oriented datasets such as CATMuS have shown greater generalizability, their raw outputs remain poorly compatible with most readers and downstream NLP tools, thus creating a usability gap.
  • On the other hand, ATR models trained to produce normalized outputs have been shown to struggle to adapt to new domains and tend to over-normalize and hallucinate.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We introduce the task of Pre-Editorial Normalization (PEN), which consists in normalizing graphemic ATR output according to editorial conventions, which has the advantage of keeping an intermediate step with palaeographic fidelity while…
  • We present a new dataset derived from the CoMMA corpus and aligned with digitized Old French and Latin editions using passim.
  • Our contributions include the formal definition of PEN, a 4.66M-sample silver training corpus, a 1.8k-sample gold evaluation set, and a normalization model achieving a 6.7% CER, substantially outperforming previous models for this task.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We also produce a manually corrected gold-standard evaluation set.
  • Our contributions include the formal definition of PEN, a 4.66M-sample silver training corpus, a 1.8k-sample gold evaluation set, and a normalization model achieving a 6.7% CER, substantially outperforming previous models for this task.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Medieval

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: cer

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.