Juno in the proemium of Ovid’s Fasti 6: Considerations on the reconciliatory role of the goddess
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the opening ofFasti6, Ovid proposes different explanations for the origin of the month name June by means of a competition between three goddesses: Juno, Juventas, and Concordia. Each goddess puts forth an etymology for June that derives from her own name or individual attributions, alimenting the indecisiveness of the poet who eventually walks out of the scene unable to return a verdict. As she is depicted in this text, Juno might appear as a parodic version of the Virgilian goddess and the ideas she represents. To a close reading, however, it is evident that Juno has retained her reconciliatory function, which has allowed the Roman development, and moreover has been enriched by characteristics that look back at her ancient Italian cult and, at the same time, place her in the new Augustan reality. In particular, Ovid blends the early martial and political aspects of the goddess with her function as protectress of legitimate marriage, which seems to have been prominent in the Augustan period. In fact, Ovid emphasizes that conjugal union is the means by which Juno ends her hostility and enables further growth and development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".