MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979944582 · doi:10.1017/s1047759419000175

The man who came late to dinner. A sundial, a raven, and a missed dinner party on a mosaic at Tarsus

2019· article· en· W2979944582 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine M. D. Dunbabin, Işık Adak Adibelli, Mehmet Çavuş, Doğukan Alper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Roman Archaeology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTarsus (eyelids)ExcavationArchaeologyLate AntiquityLate periodPeriod (music)MosaicGeologyAncient historyArtHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2012, construction works at the traditional olive market at Tarsus, in Eski Ömerli district, revealed large-scale architectural remains of the Roman period; the construction works were halted and a salvage excavation was initiated by Tarsus Museum. The remains that appeared at the first stage of the excavations were interpreted as those of a reservoir from the Roman Imperial period, stretching along a N–S axis. On the E side, a structure projects from the E wall of the reservoir, containing a pool that collects water flowing from drainage pipes set in the reservoir’s façade. The pool was extended in two stages in late antiquity.1 Two metres north of this pool and 3 m from the E wall of the reservoir, the excavations revealed a mosaic pavement (9.73 x 5.05 m), apparently forming part of the floor of a building running parallel to the reservoir’s wall (fig. 1).

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.006

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.225
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

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 designNot applicable
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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Roman ArchaeologySame topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207