MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808646098 · doi:10.1111/2041-5370.12074

ARMORUM STUDIUM: GLADIATORIAL TRAINING AND THE GLADIATORIAL LUDUS

2018· article· en· W2808646098 on OpenAlex
Michael Carter

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisitor patternTraining (meteorology)PsychologyPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In his Apologia (98.7), written about ad 158, Apuleius laments the fact that his former ward, the noble young Sicinius Pudens, has been allowed to abandon his studies and is instead spending his time in taverns and with prostitutes and, worst of all, has become a frequent visitor at the local gladiatorial school. Pudens has come to know all the gladiators’ names, their ‘fights and wounds’, and has even started receiving instruction from the lanista himself. In this paper, I investigate the possible reasons why aristocratic Roman youth (iuvenes) might have sought weapons-training and the means by which these young men could have accessed such training in connection with a gladiatorial ludus. The investigation additionally considers the organization of gladiators and their trainers in the ludus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.021
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.268 · 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