Scholarlink

<p>This article examines how artificial intelligence (AI) challenges and enhances editorial practice in the long-term Digital Scholarly Edition of <i>Grundtvig’s Works</i> (2010–2030). Focusing on named entity recognition, semantic annotation, and biblical reference detection, the authors explore how computational methods – particularly large language models (LLMs) – are evaluated and applied within a Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) framework. The article argues that while such tools can ease repetitive tasks and support editorial workflows, they must be aligned with the interpretive, philological, and historical foundations of scholarly editing. Through concrete examples from annotation practices and manuscript transcription, the authors show how editorial work remains a critical interpretive act. The article also outlines efforts to integrate AI-assisted methods into the digitisation and enrichment of Grundtvig’s extensive manuscript archive. Rather than automation replacing expertise, it proposes a model of methodological convergence: where digital tools extend the possibilities of human judgment in scholarly editions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Convergences. AI, editorial practice, and the Danish Digital Scholarly Edition of Grundtvig’s Works

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月2日

查看全文
  • Jon Tafdrup,
  • Kirsten Vad,
  • Krista Stinne Greve Rasmussen,
  • Katrine Laigaard Baunvig

摘要

This article examines how artificial intelligence (AI) challenges and enhances editorial practice in the long-term Digital Scholarly Edition of Grundtvig’s Works (2010–2030). Focusing on named entity recognition, semantic annotation, and biblical reference detection, the authors explore how computational methods – particularly large language models (LLMs) – are evaluated and applied within a Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) framework. The article argues that while such tools can ease repetitive tasks and support editorial workflows, they must be aligned with the interpretive, philological, and historical foundations of scholarly editing. Through concrete examples from annotation practices and manuscript transcription, the authors show how editorial work remains a critical interpretive act. The article also outlines efforts to integrate AI-assisted methods into the digitisation and enrichment of Grundtvig’s extensive manuscript archive. Rather than automation replacing expertise, it proposes a model of methodological convergence: where digital tools extend the possibilities of human judgment in scholarly editions.