MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005926080 · doi:10.2307/3648488

Num te leaena: Catullus 60

2003· article· es· W2005926080 on OpenAlex
Christopher Nappa

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhoenix · 2003
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RECENT WORK ON CATULLUS HAS SOUGHT TO EXPAND our critical understanding of his poetry both by drawing on new approaches and also by incorporating more individual poems into the critical picture. In particular, greater concentration on the realia of Roman society and fuller appreciation of the dynamics of Catullan language have allowed us to map out meaningful connections between once neglected and frequently opaque texts and the best known poems in the Catullan corpus. At the same time, scholarship has been exploring the importance of the audience as a factor in the interpretation of Latin poetry; indeed, awareness of the complicated interactions between text and audience has opened up new possibilities for reading even the most opaque texts of Catullus.1 In this paper, I will suggest how such approaches can lead to a greater appreciation of Carmen 60, which, like many of the very short poems of Catullus, has not excited much scholarly comment.2 The reasons for this neglect are more or

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.284 · 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