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 26 · DO #1562 · 40_Slate_Bx4FF2r

Collection
George Lewis Slate (1899–1976) papers on Arnold Arboretum
Item/Folder
Harvard's Side, 1954–1957, n.d.
Digital Object
DO #1562, page 26
Collection-level dates
1949–1967, n.d.
Open PDF at page 26 ↗

Page transcription

-2-

specimens which came to it from other sources. There was the famous Gray Herbarium and there were many other similar gifts, bequests and purchases made over the years. Many of the books and botanical specimens acquired in this way were closely related to those which had been collected by the Arnold Arboretum but, unfortunately, they were not housed in any central place. The Arboretum collections were in buildings at Jamaica Plain, whereas the other collections were scattered through a number of different buildings located six miles away in Cambridge.

Some years ago a comprehensive plan known as the Bailey Plan was proposed for bringing together under a single direction all of the botanical and horticultural activities at Harvard. One of the features of this plan was the centralization in a new building in Cambridge of all the libraries and specimens relating to botany and horticulture. The plan also called for the use of a portion of the income of the Arboretum to pay for its fair share of the cost of operating and maintaining the new building and caring for its collections.

The Bailey Plan was presented to the Harvard Corporation with the full approval of the director and staff of the Arnold Arboretum, but nearly four years after it had been approved by the Corporation, questions were raised as to its wisdom and legality. The Corporation referred the legal questions to counsel and the question of the wisdom of the plan to the Board of Overseers, which is a group of thirty distinguished alumni who supervise the affairs of the University. After prolonged study extending over several years the Overseers unanimously approved a resolution authorizing the Corporation to proceed with the construction of the new building and the centralization of the botanical books and specimens, together with the accompanying financial arrangements. Counsel advised that there was no legal objection to this and it was, accordingly, done. Other features of the plan were found to be unwise or of doubtful legality and these were abandoned.

Now let us see just what the Harvard Corporation did. The land at Jamaica Plain and the trees and shrubs which grow there were not in any way injured nor have they been neglected. Today they are in as fine condition as they ever were and just as much money is being spent on them as before - in fact more. They are receiving the best of care and are in constant use as a basis for study and teaching.

Certain books and specimens which relate strictly to horticulture were kept at Jamaica Plain because that was the place where it appeared that they would be of greatest use. The rest of the books and specimens were moved to the new central building where they continue to be the property of the Arnold Arboretum and remain completely accessible to its staff. The usefulness of these books and specimens to the staff of the Arboretum, as well as to the many others interested in many parts of the world, has, in fact, been greatly increased by their immediate proximity to the other related collections belonging to Harvard. They are better housed than they were before and the scientific work of the Arboretum has been made easier.

Why then is there any objection on the part of those who have the best interest of the Arboretum at heart? Frankly, that is a question which it is very difficult for me to answer. The dissenters say that the books and specimens.