MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772337977 · doi:10.5617/acta.5808

Reconsidering the Ancient Algerian Basilica of Chlef and its Mosaics

2014· article· en· W2772337977 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robin M. Jensen

Bibliographic record

VenueActa ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval History and Crusades
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAltarContext (archaeology)Quarter (Canadian coin)Ancient historyChristianityHistoryEarly ChristianityFoundation (evidence)PoliticsSixth centuryArchaeological evidenceMosaicClassicsArchaeologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An early Christian basilica, discovered in the Algerian city of Al-Asnam and excavated and studied from the mid-nineteenth century until most of its remains were wither covered or lost by the last quarter of the twentieth century, provides some important evidence for the practice of Christianity in Mauretania Caesariensis in the fifth century. Among this evidence is a dedicatory inscription referring to the church’s foundation; a shrine to a local bishop, placed in a counter apse; a mosaic indicating the probable placement and design of the church’s altar; and two additional mosaics that may reflect aspects of the church’s situation within certain theological and political conflicts of the fourth through sixth centuries (i.e., between Donatists and Catholics, between Vandal Arians and Africans Nicenes, and between the Mauri (Berbers) and both Vandals and Romans). This brief essay summarizes and supplements existing publications on this basilica by exploring the connections between the design and décor of the basilica and the theological and ecclesial context of its particular time and place.

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)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentiaSame topicMedieval History and CrusadesFrench-language works237,207