Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gift-exchange forms one of the central frameworks for defining social bonds within Roman society, and was part of how Roman poets constructed the world. In the late Republic, Rome was built on gift-exchange and reciprocal obligations, both between patrons and clients and between nominally equal friends. At the same time, social and political position was determined by prestige, dignity, and public image, and this combination resulted in tensions and concerns over status in the giving and receiving of gifts, favours and services. Although this tension becomes more evident in the work of later Augustan poets, it can also be seen in the poetry of Catullus. Much of his poetry is concerned, explicitly or implicitly, with the formation and dissolution of social bonds, and comprehending the role of gift-exchange in his poetry is important to a clear understanding of his works. L’échange de dons et de contre-dons constitue un des principaux modes de définition des liens sociaux au sein de la société romaine et jouait un rôle dans la représentation du monde par les poètes romains. À la fin de la République, Rome était construite sur un système d’échanges de dons et d’obligations réciproques, à la fois entre patrons et clients, ainsi qu’entre amis théoriquement égaux. Parallèlement, les positions sociales et politiques étaient déterminées par le prestige, la dignité et l’image publique. Cette combinaison occasionnait des tensions et des préoccupations relatives au statut respectif du donneur et du receveur lors de l’échange de dons, de faveurs ou de services. Bien que cette tension devînt plus évidente dans l’œuvre des poètes augustéens tardifs, elle peut aussi être discernée dans la poésie de Catulle. Une grande partie de sa poésie s’intéresse, explicitement ou implicitement, à la formation et à la dissolution des liens sociaux. Comprendre le rôle de l’échange de dons dans sa poésie permet donc d’accéder à une meilleure compréhension de ses œuvres.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".