Social clustering in 5th-c. Constantinople: the evidence of the <i>Notitia</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clustering of residents of similar social status, ethnic or religious identity, or geographical origin into distinct areas of a city is a “common, but by no means universal, attribute of urban neighborhoods”. Different cities within a single culture and era exhibit diversity in the occurrence and nature of clustering: “there is no such thing as a ‘typical’ pattern of clustering within, say, Medieval cities or Islamic cities”. The existence and nature of clustering in Roman cities have rarely been the object of systematic study, and most contributions have focused on textual evidence for clustering in the city of Rome. A recent consideration of Rome under the Principate finds no evidence for strong clustering along social lines. The evidence points rather to the reverse: social mixing, at all levels. Similarly, a study of the neighborhoods of Augustan Rome observes that, although areas of the city might develop reputations as more or less desirable, ancient Rome was not generally segregated by class. Apartment buildings for poorer residents existed alongside the houses of more affluent residents in almost every quarter of the city.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it