Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the ancient world, dress and adornment were significant forms of expressing social status but they were also subject to severe scrutiny by the group. Women's dress, in particular, faced repeated criticism by male authors. Wealthy women had to dress elegantly in order to reflect the affluence of their family yet they should not be overly adorned lest they be accused of luxuria. Given that most women could not pursue honourable exploits in war or politics, this article concurs with scholars who argue that adornment was a particularly significant means of constructing status for women and a strategic tool that they could use to manoeuvre throughout a patriarchal society. Such a phenomenon was no different for early Christians, including the women who are subjects of intense critique by the church leaders, Tertullian and Cyprian, who associate adornment with moral and theological dangers. Yet wealthy women played important roles as patrons and benefactors throughout Carthage, and in the church they served as martyrs, virgins, prophets, intercessors and possibly confessors. They undoubtedly knew that their adornment, which was portable wealth, enabled them to exert a certain degree of power, as did their detractors. Attention to this dimension of social history thus deserves more examination when analysing ancient Christian texts that seek to regulate dress.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".