Female Gender Marginality in the Imperial Roman World: Affinity Between Women and Slaves in their Shared Stereotypes and Penetrability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The concepts of sex and gender existed in the imperial Roman world. Although there existed a sliding scale of sex and gender, gender was largely pre-determined at the time of one’s birth based on one’s sexual anatomy and concurrently, gender acculturation of the male and the female began. It was a conventional notion that women were marginal compared to freeborn men by the virtue of gender. Although the Romans improved the legal independence of free women, Greco-Roman literary evidence harbors various theoretical positions regarding female social marginality and submission, which were largely associated with slaves, and also underscores the paradox that female position of authority was only meant to be negotiated with the position of subordination. This article deals with the issue of female gender marginality and enculturation of female servility in the imperial Roman world. Various Roman literary traditions link women to slaves in their shared stereotypes and evidence that women and slaves were seen to share affinity for vulnerable penetrability in the face of the male sexual and domestic violence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".