Submission 457, Michael Piotrowski

[mtwente]

Pull request

Proposed changes

• add submission 457
• remove placeholder files

Co-Authored-By: Michael Piotrowski [email protected]

Types of changes

• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
• Enhancement (non-breaking change which enhances functionality)
• Bug Fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change).

Checklist

• I have read the README document.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have mentioned all co-authors in the PR description as Co-authored-by: Name <[email protected]>.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Introduced a new manuscript project configuration for rendering articles.
  • Added a detailed scholarly submission titled "Towards Computational Historiographical Modeling" by Michael Piotrowski.
  • Included a comprehensive bibliography in BibTeX format, enhancing citation capabilities.

• Bug Fixes

  • Adjusted various metadata declarations for consistency across submission files.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The recent updates include the introduction of a YAML configuration file for a manuscript project, a scholarly submission titled "Towards Computational Historiographical Modeling," and a comprehensive bibliography. The YAML file establishes the project structure, while the main document addresses the significance of digital corpora in historiography. The bibliography offers a diverse range of academic references, enhancing the scholarly context of the submission.

Changes

Files	Change Summary
submissions/457/_quarto.yml	Introduced YAML config defining a manuscript project type with article location and HTML format.
submissions/457/index.qmd	Added a scholarly submission discussing digital corpora's role in historiography and its implications.
submissions/457/references.bib	Created a bibliography in BibTeX format with diverse academic references across multiple disciplines.

Poem

🐇 In fields of knowledge, we hop and play,
With YAML and texts guiding our way.
Digital corpora, a scholarly delight,
Illuminating history, shining so bright!
References stacked, wisdom to share,
Let’s leap into learning, with hops of flair! ✨

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
  • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between aed60d0 and fe8442f.

Files selected for processing (3)

• submissions/457/_quarto.yml (1 hunks)
• submissions/457/index.qmd (1 hunks)
• submissions/457/references.bib (1 hunks)

Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)

• submissions/457/_quarto.yml

Additional comments not posted (15)

submissions/457/references.bib (13)

1-13: Entry Acerbi2013 is well-formed.

The entry contains all necessary fields and is correctly formatted.

---

14-30: Entry Apostel1961 is well-structured.

The entry is comprehensive and contains all necessary fields.

---

32-40: Entry Bachelard1968 is complete.

The entry contains all necessary fields and is correctly formatted.

---

41-50: Entry Bachelard2020 is well-structured.

The entry contains all necessary fields and is correctly formatted.

---

51-59: Entry Granger1967 is complete.

The entry contains all necessary fields and is correctly formatted.

---

60-70: Entry Korzybski1933 is well-structured.

The entry contains all necessary fields and is correctly formatted.

---

71-98: Entry Michel2011 is well-structured.

The entry contains all necessary fields and is correctly formatted.

---

100-110: Entry Monod1889 is complete.

The entry contains all necessary fields and is correctly formatted.

---

111-126: Entry Mothon2010 is well-structured.

The entry contains all necessary fields and is correctly formatted.

---

128-137: Entry Piotrowski2018c is complete.

The entry contains all necessary fields and is correctly formatted.

---

139-150: Entry Rheinberger2005 is well-structured.

The entry contains all necessary fields and is correctly formatted.

---

152-160: Entry Stachowiak1973 is complete.

The entry contains all necessary fields and is correctly formatted.

---

161-174: Entry Mayaffre2006 is well-structured.

The entry contains all necessary fields and is correctly formatted.

submissions/457/index.qmd (2)

1-21: Metadata is well-structured and complete.

The YAML metadata contains all necessary fields and is correctly formatted.

---

23-73: Content is well-written and logically structured.

The manuscript sections provide a coherent narrative with appropriate citations.

Consider verifying that all external links are accessible and correct.