ERC Proof of Concept Lump Sum Grant

• (max. 3 pages)

• The problem [Describe the problem or the need that the idea is aiming to solve or alleviate]:
  • Codicological, paleographical and philological knonwledge and skills is being lost
  • No easy-to-use tools that cover the entire philological process until the finished product (long time desideratum)
• The solution [Explain how the idea will solve or alleviate the problem or the need and the meaning that this will make. A clear value proposition should be included, explaining how the idea solves users' problems or improves their situation]:
  • VRE for editions
  • smooth, integrated and reproducible workflow, from a to z (from searching for sources to publish the edition)
• The origin [Briefly describe the ERC-funded project from which the idea is substantially drawn and briefly demonstrate the relation between the idea and the ERC-funded project in question.]: RevLog Redux ERC Synergy Grant ⇒ Huge editorial effort in different cultural and linguistic traditions in Medieval philosophy

[Describe how the idea has the potential to drive innovation and business inventiveness and/or tackle societal challenges.]

[Describe in detail how the project outcomes will be innovative or distinctive. This section should include a clear explanation of why the solution proposed is new compared to what already exists. A clear value proposition should be included, explaining why potential users or sponsors should choose this solution and not other existing solutions.]

[Describe any competing products or solutions.]

• Generative AI challenges ⇒ text specialists can investigate …
• tackle the challenge of the flattening of texts and communication

Competitors:

• https://www.transkribus.org/

[Explain how the idea, if successful, will result in breakthrough innovation.

Describe which are the aspects that may be difficult to overcome or what are the features that might require development of new approaches.]

• full circle, and smoothly between different relevant formats : one source of truth (collation table)
• source to output
• standards: F.I.T.S standard + IIIF + TEI
• Not possible to be generic, to scale
• High error rate
• Neuro-symbolic AI: constrain AI/ML output thank to ontological framework and logical rules

[max. 6 pages]

[Describe the chosen pathway from research to innovation (e.g., patenting, creation of spinouts, licensing agreements, research contracts, research collaborations, consultancy agreements, informal advice, public engagement, policy reports/contributions to policy, and more) and explain your choice of pathway.]

This may include (where applicable1) proposed plans to: − Test, experiment, demonstrate and validate the effectiveness of the project’s outcomes (or of the idea) (e.g. testing, experimenting, technical reports or any other form of validation to confirm that the solution is effective, efficient and sustainable, or appropriate.) − Undertake research required to carry out the above activities and to address the weaknesses uncovered by them. − Clarify the IPR position and strategy2 or knowledge transfer strategy (e.g. patenting, creation of spin-outs, licensing agreements, research contracts, research collaborations, consultancy agreements, informal advice, public engagement, policy reports/contributions to policy, and more.) − Involving industrial partners, societal or cultural organisations, policy makers or any other potential stakeholders supporting the translation of research results into innovation. Describe the level of relationship with entities mentioned in your proposal. If you have an established working relationship with any of them, describe its nature. If such contacts already exist, include supporting documentation like letters of support or intent from the relevant stakeholders. These letters of support or intent ca be uploaded in .pdf as annexes to the proposal, which will be provided to the evaluation panel reviewers and will be part of their assessment of the feasibility and effectiveness of the project − Assess the potential “end users” of the expected innovation. Who would be using the output? What would be the expected size of the group or market?

[Grants to be awarded under this action (Proof of Concept), shall exclusively take the form of a standard lump sum pre-fixed at EUR 150 000 by a European Commission decision 3. The Action description shall present a detailed project plan including clearly identified objectives, and a description of work. The description of work must demonstrate that the timescale and resources are appropriate for the implementation and feasibility of the project. It should include a description of the resources and a description of the team.]

• Objectives:
• Description of work (timescale and resources):
• Description of the resources
• Description of the team

[Demonstrate the feasibility of the planned activities within the timescale planned for the implementation of the proposed project: − Justify the project plan (where applicable, broken down into activities e.g. validating results, testing in real world contexts, clarifying IPR or knowledge transfer position and strategy, competitive/market analysis, plans for contacts with commercial and/or societal partners etc.) with clear objectives, task description and milestones representing the completion of each task. − Present a GANTT chart and/or milestones table, allowing effective monitoring over the project period4.]

[− Give a narrative description of the resources allocated for each activity. Examples of resources: e.g. the type of project staff working on a task and the estimated effort (person-months), type of equipment and consumables required for the project implementation, staff travel requirements, etc. − Justify that the resources are appropriate for the planned work. The resources should NOT be described financially. This means that no cost figures should appear. Applicants should be able to justify the good use of the lump sum for the resources described5.]

• Staff
  • Philology specialists
  • Computer scientists and Digital Humanities researchers
• Equipment and consumables
  • Servers
  • CPU and GPU
• Travel and subsistence

− Describe the team and their achievements and experience in relation to the approach you will be taking. − Describe the roles of all team members within your project. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the team?

• Roberta Padlina
• David Bloch
• Christina Thomsen Thörnqvist
• Miguel Hermo Serans
• Luca Biccheri
• Angelos Margkas

<hr/>

• Main strenghts: diversity
• Weaknesses:

[(max 1 page excluding the risk mitigation table)]

− Describe how you will take the strategic lead of the project.

− Describe the organisational structure and the decision-making process. − Explain why these are appropriate to the complexity and scale of the project. − Describe what can go wrong in the project and present a plan for the identification and acceptance or offsetting of possible risks linked to the project (e.g. scientific events such as if a test or an experiment fails). − Present a plan for unforeseen events of non-scientific/technical nature, including back-up procedures, emergency response and ex-post recovery (e.g. if a key person of the team leaves or you cannot access a facility).

Use this risk mitigation table to summarise the information in this section: