MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072574442 · doi:10.2307/3648489

Antiquus and Vetus: A Study in Latin Synonymy

2003· article· en· W2072574442 on OpenAlex

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
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and language evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenealogyGeographyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CLASSICAL LATIN IS RICH IN ADJECTIVES signifying prior or long existence, be it in a neutral sense (old, ancient, former), in a good sense of having the qualities of early or durable life (ancestral, deep-rooted, pristine), or in a bad sense of showing wear from the passage of time (archaic, obsolete, primitive). The impressive range includes antiquus, priscus, pristinus, obsoletus, exoletus, senex, senilis, anus, anilis, diutinus, diuturnus, longinquus, grandis, prior, superior, maior, antecedens, praecedens, praeteritus, and vetus.1 They vary from the simple, onedimensional, monosemic (e.g., senex = of a living creature, usually a man, advanced in years); through those imbued with a value-added overtone for better or worse (e.g., exoletus = outdated); to the ones that are complex, multi-functional, pliable between neutrality and positive or negative connotation (e.g., priscus = of people and things pertaining to earlier times; venerable by reason of age; oldfashioned or overstrict in the manner of primitive generations). At the extreme of polysemy in this vocabulary are antiquus and vetus, a prominent pair possessing the widest diversity of meanings and multiplicity of coincidences, prolific in derivatives,2 occupants of larger spaces in lexical compilations. Comprehensive dictionaries and author-oriented concordances provide valid definitions under separate entries, synopses in isolation, that are compact in nature and necessarily reticent on details. A systematic comparison can measure their synonymy, elucidating shades of convergence and divergence barely perceptible, if at all, between two discrete and condensed panoramas. What follows is a comparative study3 based on all occurrences of this couple in ten classical authors encompassing a chronological span from ca 80 B.C. to ca A.D. 140: Cicero, Caesar, Sallust, Livy,

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.218 · 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