MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2413022979 · doi:10.1093/ahr/121.3.1006

Anthony Corbeill.<i>Sexing the World: Grammatical Gender and Biological Sex in Ancient Rome</i>.

2016· article· en· W2413022979 on OpenAlexaff
Alison Keith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteratureCiceroPoliticsEmbodied cognitionInvectiveHistoryArtPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anthony Corbeill has long been engaged in the anthropological investigation of the ancient Romans, and especially in the interrogation of their most alien cultural practices. His first book, Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic (1996), explored Cicero’s theory and practice of humor in oratory from his elite metropolitan insider perspective rather than the conventional viewpoint of rhetorical handbooks. In Nature Embodied: Gesture in Ancient Rome (2004), he interrogated the significance of gestures in the contexts of prayer, mourning rites, and political invective, and drew together textual evidence to reconstruct the embodied materiality of Romans in a variety of spatial contexts. With Sexing the World: Grammatical Gender and Biological Sex in Ancient Rome, he extends his scope to analyze the correlation of biological sex with grammatical gender in the Latin language, Hellenistic Roman poetry, and descriptions of intersexual bodies and the unsexed gods of archaic Rome in a tour de force of philological, linguistic, anthropological, and historical research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical ReviewSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207