MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975818497 · doi:10.2307/1089140

Literary Texts and the Roman Historian

2001· article· en· W1975818497 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ronald Mellor, David S. Potter

Bibliographic record

VenuePhoenix · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteratureHistory of literatureArtHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Definitions: Historia as Enquiry, Historia as Story, Truth and History, Some Rules, Texts: Sorting Things Out, Participant Evidence, Publication and Literary Fashion, Illustrative Evidence, Narrative, Reconstructing Fragmentary Authors, Scholarship: Standards of Research, Historians and Records, Quellenforschung, Near Eastern Records of the Past and the Roman Imagination, Grammarians and Historians, The Physical Process, Conclusion, Presentation: The Problem, Leopold Ranke, Objectivism and relativism, Fact and Presentation: Lucien and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Fact and Presentation: Cicero, Other Forms of Presentation, Versimilitude, Conclusion, Epilogue: The Discourse of Dominance, Appendix: Classical Authors Discussed in the Text, Bibliography.

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)0.006
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.019
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations31
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhoenixSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207