MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898496638 · doi:10.1017/s1047759418001381

The relationship between agricultural production and amphora manufacture on Roman Crete

2018· article· en· W2898496638 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Roman Archaeology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient Mediterranean Archaeology and History
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmphoraAgricultureProduction (economics)CivilizationCapital (architecture)Investment (military)EconomyEngineeringBusinessHistoryAncient historyPolitical scienceEconomicsArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While there have been a number of inquiries into agricultural production and amphora manufacture, discussion of the relationship between the two remains limited. A recent article by A. Bevan that examines the history of ‘containerization’ in the Mediterranean from the early Bronze Age to the 20th c. A.D. illustrates one side. It focuses on different manifestations of containers, emphasizing their cultural impact over the whole history of civilization in the region. While underscoring the importance of these transport vessels as packaging, particularly for liquid commodities, he provides limited consideration of the mechanisms behind the goods moving into these containers. Studies concerned with agricultural production are also on the rise, but scholars often limit the focus to amphorae. For instance, in analyzing capital investment in large-scale farms, A. Marzano commented: rather than attempting a study of agricultural production through the containers for foodstuffs, this investigation focuses on the presses, the machinery for the processing of grapes and olive.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.205 · 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