Bibliographic record
Abstract
GREEK MASKS AND THE ROMAN STAGE Masked performance was a standard feature of Greek and Roman theatre. Masks do not operate in isolation: they are necessarily only components in a larger visual system that presents a complex of relationships that extends in three directions. First, masks relate to one another structurally, as has been shown for comedy and tragedy in the fifth century and later for Menander and New Comedy. Second, masks coordinate with other resources the actor brings to his part: to be effective, a masked actor must use his body and voice in a way that harmonises with the mask. Finally, masks may resonate with the society that produces them, so that when an audience sees a mask, it may make associations with particular individuals (as in the case of the so-called portrait masks of Aristophanes) or with representations of faces in other plays or other artistic media. It is this third, societal, dimension that should make us question any direct continuity of the system of masks used from Greek New Comedy to the Roman New Comedy of Plautus a century later. Just as the script has been freely adapted into Latin, so is there a parallel transposition of the Greek masking tradition. The mask is one tool available to Plautus' actors in their performance. Aulus Gellius ( Attic Nights 5.7) confirms Roman masks covered the whole head, as was the case in the Greek tradition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".