Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation
A Research Division of Carnegie Mellon University

Hunt Institute Archives Text Discovery Platform

Search a large and growing portion of our online collections, including handwritten documents.
PROTOTYPE

This prototype uses state-of-the-art artificial intelligence, including a vision-language model (VLM) capable of reading handwritten documents as well as typed and printed text, to create searchable transcriptions of digitized materials in the Hunt Institute Archives. This makes it possible to search the textual contents of individual pages, including material that may not be described in the archival catalog.

Use Keyword search for specific words, names, dates, scientific names, or phrases. Try Semantic search (experimental) to describe a topic, question, or kind of material when you do not know the exact wording used in the documents.

About the AI-generated transcriptions

The transcriptions are generated automatically from page images and may contain errors, especially with difficult handwriting, unusual names, multiple languages, image-quality problems, or complex layouts. They are intended primarily as a discovery aid rather than authoritative transcriptions.

Each result provides the generated transcription and links to the original digitized material and associated archival description so that readings can be checked against the source. The transcription workflow uses AI models run locally by the Hunt Institute.

About Keyword and Semantic search

Keyword search is the default and matches the wording in the transcriptions. Results contain all your terms. Use quotes for an exact phrase. Substring matching is supported, so aceae can find plant-family names ending in -aceae.

Semantic search (experimental) is useful when you know what kind of material you are looking for but do not know the words used in the documents. It ranks transcribed passages by similarity of meaning, so relevant results may not contain the exact words in your query.

Semantic queries can be broad research topics, descriptions of activities or relationships, or natural-language questions. For example:

Semantic search is not a chatbot: a question is used as a search query, and the system returns archival passages that appear conceptually related to it rather than generating an answer or summary. Short descriptions and ordinary research questions generally work better than lists of disconnected keywords. Quotation marks have no special meaning in Semantic mode. Cross-language matching may work in some cases, but it should not be treated as translation.

Keyword and Semantic search are complementary. Keyword search lets you require particular wording; Semantic search can surface differently worded passages about the same subject. Depending on the research question, trying both can reveal different useful material.

Open a result: use the prominent page-and-transcription link to see the metadata, PDF, and full transcription. Keyword-search terms are highlighted in the transcription.

Archives Collections Database (ArchivesSpace): the Collection, Item/Folder, and Digital Object links open the corresponding archival records. Collection-level dates describe the collection as a whole, not necessarily the specific item or page.

If a PDF does not load: on the detail page, use the Digital Object link, click “Go to file” in ArchivesSpace, and navigate to the page number shown here.

Current limitations
  • Automated transcriptions can contain missing or incorrect text or unintended repetition. Difficult handwriting, image quality, unusual layouts, and multiple languages can reduce accuracy. Always consult the original page image when an exact reading matters.
  • Semantic search remains experimental. Its rankings are an additional discovery aid, not a complete or definitive set of relevant results, and highly ranked pages can sometimes be only broadly related.
  • This is an active prototype. Search coverage, transcriptions, functionality, and the interface may continue to change as additional archival material is processed and the system is improved.

← Back to results

Page 87 · DO #1555 · 40_Slate_Bx2FF1r

Collection
George Lewis Slate (1899–1976) papers on Arnold Arboretum
Item/Folder
Correspondence, Re-Sax, 1954–1967
Digital Object
DO #1555, page 87
Collection-level dates
1949–1967, n.d.
Open PDF at page 87 ↗

Page transcription

The general idea of uniting the several independent botanical agencies is not new and may have started with Ames and Merrill, the latter being brought here to reorganize the botanical empire and save expenses by consolidation.

Ames insisted that no money be transferred to Cambridge and he wanted court action to clarify the situation.

The Bailey plan may have started with Mangelsdorf who helped write it and has the ears of both presidents. The original idea was to have everything under one roof, Arnold Arboretum, Gray, Economic Botany, Glass flowers and Farlow Herbarium. Inflation decreased the size of the building so that space was adequate for only the Arnold Arboretum and the Gray collections. The entire first floor is devoted to plant anatomy. Less than a fourth of the Arnold Arboretum administration building is now used for active work.

Merrill transferred Bailey from the Bussy to the Arboretum (from Bussey) payroll in 1936 as quid pro quo for part of Sax, Wyman and Judd's. Sax was under Mangelsdorf and Bailey when Director of Arnold Arboretum. Bailey retained on Arboretum payroll, but Arboretum staff members removed from Bussey payroll.

Effect of present set-up on the Arboretum.

Johnson is still working at the Arboretum and brings his material over there from Cambridge. He is waiting for the court decision before he moves. When he moves only Wyman and Sax will be at the Arboretum. Both are out on the grounds, at Weston or at the Bussey much of the time so the secretary will be the only