MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404021853 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511845192.001

Introduction

2010· book-chapter· en· W2404021853 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ti Alkire, Carol Rosen

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Linguistics and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpireEmperorPortugueseReignAncient historyHistoryGeographyColonialismRomanceEthnologyHumanitiesPoliticsArchaeologyArtLiteraturePolitical scienceLinguisticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Latin and the Romance languages occupy a vast space along at least three dimensions: geographical, temporal, and social. Once the language of a small town on the Tiber River in Latium, Latin was carried far afield with the expansion of Roman power. The Empire reached its greatest extent under the reign of the emperor Trajan (98–117 ce), at which point it included modern-day Britain, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, and the Balkan peninsula, as well as immense territories in the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond, making it by far the largest single state the Western world had ever known. Even those distances are dwarfed by the extent of Western European colonial expansion in the 1500s and 1600s, which brought Spanish to most of Latin America and the Caribbean, Portuguese to Brazil, French to Canada, and all three to their many outposts around the world, where they engendered some robust creoles. On the time dimension, the colloquial speech that underlies the Romance languages was already a constant presence during the seven centuries that saw Rome grow from village to empire – and then their history still has twenty centuries to go. Their uses in society extend to every level and facet of activity from treasured world literature to instant messaging.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicHistorical Linguistics and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207