Observational analysis improves archival digitization using AI and machine learning strategies, suggesting stronger searchability.
Purpose This study shows how AI improves the transcription, indexing and searchability of historical documents by utilizing AI-driven Optical Character Recognition (OCR), Handwritten Text Recognition (HTR), Named Entity Recognition (NER), machine learning-based classification and transformer-based retrieval models. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a computational archival science approach to analyze missionary records in Malabar by combining machine learning-based text recognition, natural language processing (NLP), document classification and AI-powered retrieval models. Findings The findings show that AI and ML significantly improve the speed, performance and efficiency of archival digitization. OCR achieves up to 97.5% performance for modern printed texts, while HTR models exceed 92.5% for structured handwriting, demonstrating the efficacy of deep learning in text recognition. NER models successfully extract missionary names (91.3% F1-score) and locations (90.0% F1-score), whereas classification models such as Random Forest achieve the performance of 89.3% when categorizing archival documents, and bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT)-based search engines scoring 93.5% Precision@10 and 91.2% Recall@10, demonstrating their superior ability to retrieve relevant archival records. Precision@10 means that out of the top ten retrieved results, 93.5% are relevant, while Recall@10 indicates that 91.2% of all relevant results were found within the top ten retrieved results. Originality/value This study presents a novel integration of AI and machine learning for the systematic extraction, classification and retrieval of historical missionary records, bridging the gap between historical preservation and computational intelligence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaluvilla et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: