MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290964720 · doi:10.1017/s1047759415002573

A menorah plaque from the center of Sardis

2015· article· en· W2290964720 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcus Rautman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Roman Archaeology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJosephusJudaismAncient historyMesopotamiaHistoryDiasporaQuarter (Canadian coin)Minor (academic)GenealogyArchaeologyGeographyArtSociologyHumanitiesGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Roman Sardis, like other cities of W Asia Minor, reflects the distinctive cultures of different peoples who had long lived in its vicinity. Of these varied populations, the Jewish community seems to have been especially notable. Written sources cited by Josephus establish the presence of diaspora Jews in Lydia and Phrygia by the end of the 3rd c. B.C., when Antiochus III relocated 2000 families here from Babylon and Mesopotamia. By the Late Republic, their descendants at Sardis and other regional centers are known to have acquired civic privileges and rights. The local prominence of the Jewish community at Sardis was dramatically confirmed in the 1960s by the discovery in the city’s NW region of a large assembly hall, along with inscriptions, menorahs and other artifacts that clearly establish its use as a synagogue in the 4th-6th c. Further evidence of Jewish life has been noted during excavation of nearby houses, shops and streets in this peripheral quarter. The recent discovery of a marble relief plaque depicting a menorah and other symbols near the center is an important addition to the material culture of ancient Judaism in Asia Minor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.189 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Roman ArchaeologySame topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207