MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768474361 · doi:10.1017/s1047759400074080

Re-using the gods: a 6th-c. statuary display at Sagalassos and a re-evaluation of pagan mythological statuary in Early Byzantine civic space

2017· article· en· W2768474361 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ine Jacobs, Lea Stirling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Roman Archaeology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient Mediterranean Archaeology and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCityscapeSAINTStatueByzantine architectureMythologyQuarter (Canadian coin)ArtArchaeologyPopulationHistoryAncient historyArt historyLiteratureVisual artsDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2009, a set of under-lifesized statues was discovered on top of the pavement of the main N–S colonnaded street of Sagalassos. Their particular find contexts suggest that they had been on display along the street on top of statue brackets in its final phase. These statuettes not only survived in the cityscape into the 7th c. A.D., they were part of a large-scale renovation of the lower town datable to the second quarter of the 6th c. This exceptionally late example of displayed pagan mythological statuary provides information on what pieces of statuary were still available and considered suitable for re-use in the Early Byzantine period. In addition, the collection's composition can inform us about the preferred appearance of a bustling urban thoroughfare and something of the values and beliefs of the population at that period, since “whereas the common folk […] did not read Homer and Pindar, everyone — the butcher, the candlemaker, and the lower-class saint — could and did look at these statues”.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations35
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Roman ArchaeologySame topicAncient Mediterranean Archaeology and HistoryFrench-language works237,207