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 41 · DO #1164 · 27_Morrison_Bx7FF8r

Collection
Benjamin Yoe Morrison (1891–1966) papers
Item/Folder
Report on a trip to Colombia, 1943–1944
Digital Object
DO #1164, page 41
Collection-level dates
1915–1965, n.d.
Open PDF at page 41 ↗

Page transcription

-36-

In the course of many conversations with more than one person, there arose questions which the writer felt could be answered far better by other persons within the Department of Agriculture. The pages that follow, therefore, represent answers to questions proposed by the writer and answered by the several experts to whom the writer gladly acknowledges his debt.

Propagation methods, practices and staff for large annual production of avocados and mangoes:

The questions as proposed to Mr. Harold F. Loomis, Senior Agronomist, in charge of the U. S. Plant Introduction Garden, Coconut Grove, Florida, were briefly:

If you were to be asked to prepare a project that would have an annual output of 10,000 budded avocados and 10,000 budded, or is it grafted, mangoes,

1. How much land would you need, assuming that all trees would be moved as soon as safe;

2. How much time would be needed for the production of stock from sowing to budding;

3. How much time would elapse before the tree could be shipped;

4. How much help would you want;

5. What structures would you need?

Do you know of any instance in which the tree was shipped as a "budded stump" as has been done for Hevea?

Do we have any data on bare root shipments with or without defoliation?

All of this grows out of a hope that there can be several propagation centers, even if overland transportation facilities to planting areas are not ideal.

In your opinion and experience what are the best practices for avocados and mangoes? Avocados are budded with a bud just ready to push? Mangoes, grafted or inarched?

Are there specific stock problems?

Mr. Loomis' reply is quoted as follows: