MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280889937

A companion to the Roman Army, Paul Erdkamp (Ed.) : book reviews

2008· article· en· W2280889937 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lawrence Keppie

Bibliographic record

VenueScholia : Studies in Classical Antiquity · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReignEmperorHistoryReading (process)ClassicsPeriod (music)Statement (logic)Ancient historyLawArtPolitical sciencePolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We live in an age when compendious volumes exercise an irresistible hold over publishers with, for example, series entitled 'The Complete', 'The World of' and, as here, Blackwell's 'Companions to'. The publisher offers a mission statement for the series (p. ii), that it provides 'sophisticated and authoritative overviews', written 'in a clear, provocative and lively manner, designed for an international audience of scholars, students, and general readers'. The army is one of the best-documented aspects of Roman society, especially for the early centuries AD, from a rich combination of literary, epigraphic, papyrological, sculptural, and archaeological evidence. Thus it is an easy topic to constitute a well-rounded survey in the 'Companions' series. The present volume, under the general editorship of Dr. Paul Erdkamp, has brought together twenty-nine contributors, based in Australia, Austria, Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Republic of South Africa, and the United States. Each contributor was allocated a little under twenty pages, with a bibliography, and (in all but a few cases) has provided suggestions for further reading. The chapters cover a time-period of some 1300 years, from the early republic to the late empire and beyond, down to the reign of the emperor Justinian.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholia : Studies in Classical AntiquitySame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207