The Vedii Antonini: Aspects of Patronage and Benefaction in Second-Century Ephesos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DURING HIS EXCAVATIONS OF THE ODEUM OR BOULEUTERION at Ephesos between 1864 and 1866, John Turtle Wood discovered a group of monumental inscriptions. The thin slabs of marble had fallen from their original places, affixed to the proscaenium, onto the stage proper.l Wood was able to identify five inscriptions, which he later published in an appendix to his Discoveries atEphesus.2 Additional fragments of these and other inscriptions from the bouleuterion were found by Wood later in his excavations and were published by C. Curtius and E. L. Hicks.3 Three of the inscriptions from the bouleuterion, IE 1491, 1492, and 1493, form a distinct group (Plates 1, 2, 3), inscribed in the same hand on two panels which join in the middle of IE 1492.4 They concern a dispute that arose between Publius Vedius Antoninus and the citizens of Ephesos concerning a promised building project, and its resolution by the emperor Antoninus Pius in favour of Vedius Antoninus. Because these inscriptions deal with buildings, this man has been widely identified as M. Claudius Publius Vedius Antoninus Phaedrus Sabinianus (Vedius II), who, with his wife Flavia Papiane, is known from the epigraphic record to have built the bouleuterion and a bath-gymnasium complex at Ephesos. Since Wood's discovery of the bouleuterion inscriptions, numerous further finds have made the Vedii one of the most epigraphically commemorated families in Ephesos. About fifty-five more inscriptions representing six generations of this family have come to light. Of these, some twenty have been assigned to M. Claudius Publius Vedius Antoninus Phaedrus Sabinianus (Vedius III), though not without controversy.5 He is the best known of the family, due as much to his
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".