MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FORM AND FUNCTION: THE EXPERIMENTAL USE OF ROMAN SAMIAN WARE CUPS

2008· article· en· W1938355264 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Biddulph

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford Journal of Archaeology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient and Medieval Archaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsVictoria Park
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReplicateArchaeologyArtHistoryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary. Wear‐patterns inside Roman samian ware vessels provide a clue as to how the pots were used. The wear repeatedly seen in the cups, Dragendorff 27 and Dragendorff 33, is particularly distinctive. This paper reports the results of using reproduction cups to replicate the patterns in order to discover how these may have been formed. The results suggest that Dragendorff 27 was used in the kitchen as a mortar, while Dragendorff 33 was a wine‐drinking vessel. Evidence from historical sources and graffiti supports this view, and suggests that the inhabitants of Roman Britain were conversant with Roman ways of cooking and dining.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford Journal of ArchaeologySame topicAncient and Medieval Archaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207