MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2306636847 · doi:10.1017/s1047759415002469

The agonistic mosaic in the Villa of Lucius Verus and the Capitolia of Rome

2015· article· en· W2306636847 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine M. D. Dunbabin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Roman Archaeology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMosaicContext (archaeology)Agonistic behaviourArtCasualWhite (mutation)Art historyVisual artsHistoryArchaeologyPsychologyLawPolitical scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 3rd-c. interventions in the Villa of Lucius Verus on theVia Cassiaincluded the laying of a black-and-white mosaic in the irregular space 32 in Sector D, which forms a passage or vestibule between exedra 24/25 to the north and the small baths (41–48) to the south (fig. 1). The mosaic shows a series of figures and small groups; most are athletes of various sorts, but they also include musicians, comic and tragic actors, and a prize-table with crowns or wreaths and busts of the three Capitoline deities, as well as other figures whose identification is sometimes not immediately obvious (fig. 2). The combination of athletic, musical and theatrical events is the characteristic mark of a Greekagon; the mosaic therefore takes its place among a small group of monuments that portray suchagones. As a detailed description of the mosaic was presented by E. Caserta in NSc 22 (2010–11), the object of the present article is to place the mosaic in the context of related monuments, discuss the more problematic figures, and consider iconographic parallels which not only help to clarify some of the problems but can also indicate the artistic context within which its designer was working. Finally, it will consider the overall interpretation of the mosaic and its relationship to the agonistic culture of Rome in the 3rd c. A.D.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Roman ArchaeologySame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207