MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4293382169 · doi:10.1353/phx.2020.0059

Mosaics of Knowledge: Representing Information in the Roman World by Andrew M. Riggsby

2020· article· en· W4293382169 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kai Brodersen

Notice bibliographique

RevuePhoenix · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueClassical Antiquity Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHegemonyAsideEliteCasualPeriod (music)EmpirePower (physics)HistoryRoman EmpireSociologyEpistemologyPolitical scienceClassicsLawAestheticsPhilosophyLiteraturePoliticsArt

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

358 PHOENIX When the chapters are taken together, the interplay of diverse datasets and methodologies highlights how much we still stand to learn about this complex period. That being said, this reader was left wanting further engagement with the ideas presented in the volume’s introduction. Concepts of empire, hegemony, and anarchy appear throughout, but are often addressed only in a casual manner or without consideration of how models could change when they are combined. For instance, Roth’s chapter on increasing elite investment in municipal communities characterizes the municipalization phenomenon as part of Rome’s growing claim to “comprehensive hegemony of terra Italia” (103). Yet one could also explore how municipalization, driven by Rome’s hegemonic claims, could itself become a decentralizing, and thus potentially anarchic, force within Roman Italy. Similarly, the interplay of these concepts fades into the background within the papers concerning the post-Social-War world. Can we still call Roman power in first-century Italy hegemonic, or do we have anarchy in a post-conflict zone? When do the conceptions of empire identified by Ando widely apply to Italy? Is it only with the Civil Wars and Augustus, or do they follow in step with municipalization? A concluding chapter by the editors would have been a welcome addition to help connect the findings of the papers and to show the potential that these models have for our understanding of this key historical period. These minor criticisms aside, the editors and contributors should be applauded for producing a stimulating volume that will quickly become essential reading for all students of republican history. The question posed by the volume’s title is still very much open and invites further research and reflection. University of Toronto Drew Davis Mosaics of Knowledge: Representing Information in the Roman World. By Andrew M. Riggsby. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2019. Pp. 264. Contributing to a lively scholarly discussion, Mosaics of Knowledge aims to provide a better understanding of the Romans’ “balkanized informational world,” in which information was not controlled by the needs of any particular group, and individual Romans would have had access to a “ ‘tessellation’ of contributions by intellectuals, bureaucrats, and tradesmen (. . . the ‘mosaic’ of the title)” (9). To achieve his purpose, its author studies lists, tables, and tabular organization, weights and measures, and the representation of three dimensions (perspective) and two dimensions (plans and maps), in what he refers to as the “Latin World” up to the end of the third century c.e. After a useful “Brief Orientation,” the first chapter discusses specialized types of “Lists,” i.e., tables of contents in miscellanies, alphabetized lists, indexed lists, and nested lists for large and continuously expanding public records. The second chapter deals with “Tables” (in the narrow sense of matrices with meaningful rows and columns) and “Tabular Organization,” for example, in centuriation and military duty rosters. They are shown to be useful for clearly defined expert communities of users and producers to constitute (bring into being rather than record) data in contexts in which priority is given to organization itself over content. The third chapter on “Weights and Measures” demonstrates that their creation and use appear as a localized process, with many units of measurement presenting no absolute values, but rough approximations and proportions, or even metonyms. This unsurprising fact, familiar until early modern times, is explained by the absence of what the author refers to as “state regulation” and the lack of market BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 359 pressure. The fourth chapter addresses “Representing Three Dimensions” in Roman painting, focusing on three “sacro-idyllic” representations from Rome: a columbarium found on the grounds of the Villa Doria Pamphili, and the walls and stucco ceilings of the suburban villa found under the Villa Farnesina (all now accessible on the same floor of the museum in the Palazzo Massimo in Rome). The chapter shows the use not of a single system, but of a variety of “spatializing tactics.” These create a network of connections at a distance, giving three-dimensional structure to representations which are “spatial” in a “more topological,” rather than Euclidean, sense (7). The fifth and final chapter on “Representing Two Dimensions” focuses on what the author calls “maps...

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,509
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,248

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,314
Écart entre enseignants0,278 · 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 tête enseignante, 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
Publié2020
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePhoenixMême sujetClassical Antiquity StudiesTravaux en français237 207