Hvitfeldt, Emil, and Julia Silge. Supervised Machine Learning for Text Analysis in R. Emil Hvitfeldt and Julia Silge, 2020. https://smltar.com/. Cite

Rogers, Anna, Olga Kovaleva, and Anna Rumshisky. “A Primer in BERTology: What We Know about How BERT Works.” ArXiv:2002.12327 [Cs], 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.12327. Cite

Yang, Yiwei, Eser Kandogan, Yunyao Li, Prithviraj Sen, and Walter S. Lasecki. “A Study on Interaction in Human-in-the-Loop Machine Learning for Text Analytics.” In IUI Workshops 2019. Los Angeles: ACM, 2019. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Study-on-Interaction-in-Human-in-the-Loop-Machine-Yang-Kandogan/03a4544caed21760df30f0e4f417bbe361c29c9e. Cite

“The Programming Historian.” Programming Historian, 2019. https://programminghistorian.org/. Cite

Ford, Clay. “The Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.” University of Virginia Library Research Data Services + Sciences, 2017. https://data.library.virginia.edu/the-wilcoxon-rank-sum-test/. Cite

Steinskog, Asbjørn, Jonas Therkelsen, and Björn Gambäck. “Twitter Topic Modeling by Tweet Aggregation.” In Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics, 77–86. Gothenburg: Linko¨ping University Electronic Press, 2017. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Twitter-Topic-Modeling-by-Tweet-Aggregation-Steinskog-Therkelsen/89735b06ee5d7bcb469ddc619022bbc9f2443f02. Cite

Lijffijt, Jefrey, Terttu Nevalainen, Tanja Säily, Panagiotis Papapetrou, Kai Puolamäki, and Heikki Mannila. “Significance Testing of Word Frequencies in Corpora.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 31, no. 2 (2016): 374–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqu064. Cite

Algee-Hewitt, Mark, Sarah Allison, Marissa Gemma, Ryan Heuser, Franco Moretti, and Hannah Walser. Canon/Archive: Large-Scale Dynamics in the Literary Field. Vol. 11. Stanford Literary Lab Pamphlets. Stanford, CA: Stanford Literary Lab, 2016. https://litlab.stanford.edu/LiteraryLabPamphlet11.pdf. Cite

Long, Hoyt, and Richard Jean So. “Literary Pattern Recognition: Modernism between Close Reading and Machine Learning.” Critical Inquiry 42, no. 2 (2016): 235–67. https://doi.org/10.1086/684353. Cite

Danesh, Soheil, Tamara Sumner, and James H. Martin. “SGRank: Combining Statistical and Graphical Methods to Improve the State of the Art in Unsupervised Keyphrase Extraction.” In Proceedings of the Fourth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, 117–26. Denver, Colorado: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2015. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S15-1013. Cite

Underwood, Ted. “Seven Ways Humanists Are Using Computers to Understand Text.” The Stone and the Shell (blog), 2015. https://tedunderwood.com/2015/06/04/seven-ways-humanists-are-using-computers-to-understand-text/. Cite

Algee-Hewitt, Mark, and Mark McGurl. Between Canon and Corpus: Six Perspectives on 20th-Century Novels. Vol. 8. Stanford Literary Lab Pamphlets. Stanford, CA: Stanford Literary Lab, 2015. https://litlab.stanford.edu/LiteraryLabPamphlet8.pdf. Cite

De Bolla, Peter. The Architecture of Concepts: The Historical Formation of Human Rights. New York: Fordham University Press, 2013. Cite

Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid KhosraviNik, Michał Krzyżanowski, Tony McEnery, and Ruth Wodak. “A Useful Methodological Synergy? Combining Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics to Examine Discourses of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK Press.” Discourse & Society 19, no. 3 (2008): 273–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088962. Cite

Sebastiani, Fabrizio. “Machine Learning in Automated Text Categorization.” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 34, no. 1 (2002): 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1145/505282.505283. Cite