Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of sexuality has been a hot and trendy topic of late in all fields of historical scholarship, but it is one that has somewhat lagged behind in the area of ancient Greek and Roman studies.However, in the last decade or so there have been a series of books dealing with the subject, with particular emphasis on the Latin erotic poetry of Catullus and Ovid, but also from the perspective of what the art and archaeological sources tell us.Also, many authors, both ancient and modern, have related the sometimes scandalous and over-the-top sexual exploits of the Roman emperors, but more so as a matter of fascination, entertainment, and vilification.Nonetheless, such tales have the potential to reveal elements concerning not only the morals of the emperor and of Roman society as a whole, but also what sexuality and reactions to it can tell us about how Romans understood their own identity.Caroline Vout's new book examines the concept of sex and power (6-7), but in particular provides a new perspective on how the sex lives of the emperors and the emperors' sexuality, as portrayed in both literary sources and visual media such as sculpture, reveals how Romans perceived themselves in relation to the emperor and their place in the Roman Empire itself.The book spans a total of six chapters and includes not only a general index, but also an index of all principal passages by ancient authors cited in the main text.The first chapter entitled " The erotics of imperium", is essentially an introduction
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".