THE GALLIC CHURCH COUNCILS IN THE END OF IV – FIRST QUARTER OF V A.D., INSCRIPTION OF GALLA PLACIDIA AND GREEK INSCRIPTION FROM ARABIA: A NEW VIEW ON DATING OF WESTERN AND EASTERN LISTS OF NOTITIA DIGNITATUM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No period of Roman state history, except for Late Roman Em-pire, knows so thorough and at the same time so controversial docu-ment, as Notitia Dignitatum – this administrative handbook, a de-tailed list of all the Late Roman military and civilian offices, became an object of intensive discussions yet in the last third of XIX c. and continues to be as a such up to now days. Scholars proposed a variety of different treatments on content, aims and most essential – dating of Notitia Dignitatum‘ compiling, mainly insisting on the frameworks of 395-413 for eastern half of ND and on the limits of 425-430 – for the western half. The author proposes a new view on dating of this source, when applied to Greek building dedication from Arabia and consider-ing the data of Gallic church Councils reports of the border of IV-V A.D. The comparison of these evidences with the text of Latin inscrip-tion from Ravenna, which also has received a little attention from the scholars, allowed the author to revise in-depth the statement on dating of eastern list by 401 and permitted to place the western half of ND in the context of matrimonial (dynastic) policy of Ravenna and Constan-tinople, held in the end of 30th of V 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".