MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2284366700 · doi:10.14288/1.0100757

Drusus Caesar, the son of Tiberius

2011· article· en· W2284366700 sur OpenAlexaff
Millo Lawrence Goodship Shaw

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueClassical Antiquity Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHistoryAncient historyGenealogy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This dissertation attempts to deduce from the ancient sources and assess the life of Drusus, the son of Tiberius, focussing upon his position and conduct within the Julio-Claudian principate and succession. The study is worthwhile, but difficult. Drusus was a prominent member of the imperial family, but the surviving literary references to him are deficient in both detail and quality, probably because the original sources were biased in favour of the Julian side of the family, chiefly represented by Germanicus, and against the Claudian members, like Drusus. He was born on October 7th, probably between 15 and 13 BC. His father, Tiberius Claudius Nero, had illustrious patrician forbears and was stepson to Augustus Caesar, while his mother, Vipsania Agrippina, was daughter of the Emperor's right-hand man, Marcus Agrippa. Drusus was initially excluded from the imperial succession because he lacked direct kinship with the Emperor, but in AD 4 he was made the adoptive grandson of Augustus and fourth in the line of succession after Tiberius, Agrippa Postumus, and Germanicus, who were also adopted. His name was changed to Drusus Julius Caesar, reflecting his full-fledged membership in the Julian dynasty. He received extraordinary honours, including a distinguished marriage to his cousin, Livilla, accelerated promotion through the cursus honorum, and official pairing with his adoptive brother, Germanicus. Upon the deaths of Augustus and Postumus and the accession of Tiberius in AD 14, Drusus stood second in the succession. He lived up to his high position. In 14 he expeditiously suppressed a dangerous mutiny among the Pannonian legions, and from late 17 to early 20 his activities along the Danube frontier so weakened the German tribes that they would not bother the Empire for another fifty years. As a civilian magistrate and senator he acted competently and fairly. He was praised for checking grave abuses of the law of treason. He appears to have had an open, friendly disposition and a beneficial influence upon the Emperor. Germanicus' death in AD 19 left Drusus as Tiberius' primary successor. Tiberius formally confirmed his new status by sharing a consulship with him in 21 and, in particular, by requesting the tribunician power for him in 22. Numismatic evidence suggests the possibility that, by 22 or 23 at the latest, the Emperor transferred the imperial dynasty to Drusus as well by placing his twin sons, born probably near the end of 19, ahead of the sons of Germanicus in the succession. Tragically, in September, 23, at the very peak of his career, Drusus died. At the time he was thought to have passed away from natural causes, but in 31 the stunning charge was made that he had been poisoned by his wife and others in conspiracy with the commander of the Praetorian Guard, Aelius Sejanus. The allegation was believed by Tiberius and the source tradition, but the evidence preserved in the historical record is inconclusive. Drusus’ death proved a significant loss both for his family and for the principate. The dynasty shifted back to the Julians and Tiberius' regime began to fall away from the moderation, justice, and efficient administration that had prevailed while Drusus was alive. Perhaps worst of all, the way was opened for Caligula to become the next Emperor. If Drusus had survived to succeed his father, the record of his conduct and character suggests that his reign could have matched Augustus’ in excellence.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,015

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,208
Écart entre enseignants0,183 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Même sujetClassical Antiquity Studies→Travaux en français237 207→