MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1885468094 · doi:10.4000/cultura.1653

Derecho de gentes y política religiosa

2012· article· es· W1885468094 on OpenAlexaff
Antonio Ruiz Castellanos

Bibliographic record

VenueCultura · 2012
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Studies and Legal History
Canadian institutionsCongress of Aboriginal Peoples
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanitiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relativamente ao ius gentium deparamo-nos com três questões relacionadas: existe na antiga Roma um Direito internacional? Pode dizer-se que sim em dois aspectos: ao estabelecer-se o direito das embaixadas e da guerra e ao regular os pactos internacionais. Internamente, contudo, existirá um directo étnico, um reconhecimento e um respeito pelas diferenças culturais que se verificavam entre as diversas nações e cidades do Orbe? E, mais concretamente, até que ponto é que Roma era tolerante com as diversas religiões das distintas culturas ou, então, proselitista? O ius gentium aplica-se a cada um destes níveis. Estudamos o caso da relação Roma-Gades e os dados com que contribui para a resolução destas questões.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.022
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulturaSame topicClassical Studies and Legal HistoryFrench-language works237,207