(31-05-2019, 02:21 PM)Torsten wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.They are counted across pages in the order as they appear in the transcription. It is therefore visible that pages in Currier B (a) contain more text then pages in Currier A (b). It is also visible that words in Currier B are on average longer then in Currier A (see also graph 18 in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., p. 28). This means that the effect is smaller than otherwise and that it would be possible to improve the significance of the graph. Nevertheless, the graph is already of high significance anyway.
One plausible way to improve the significance of the observed effect would be to reorder the transcription by bifolio (it will be a test of the hypothesis that the scribe(s) wrote the 4 pages of a bifolio in sequence before starting a new one) and maybe also find the optimal order of bifolios (as there have been several more or less credible speculations that some bifolios were bound in the wrong order.)
Very interesting! Thanks.
Edit: BTW, I have a slightly different number of connected word types at edit distance 1 than the one on page 5 (6,796 out of 8,026 words). I removed all words with unclear glyphs and kept everything else in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of the TT transcription. Did you use a different version or filter? I will check this week-end if the one downloaded from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is identical. Is there some special rule for edit distance such as EVA-ii counts as 1 glyph or is it just plain EVA string edit distance?