MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014721568 · doi:10.18778/2084-140x.09.25

Vignette of Constantinople on the "Tabula Peutingerianana". The Column of Constantine or the Lighthouse

2019· article· en· W3014721568 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia Ceranea Journal of the Waldemar Ceran Research Centre for the History and Culture of the Mediterranean Area and South-East Europe · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicByzantine Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Swine Health Board
KeywordsVignetteStatueInterpretation (philosophy)PhilosophyClassicsHistoryArtArt historyPsychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article contains the analyses of 40 descriptions of the vignette of Constantinople in Tabula Peutingeriana created between the years 1768 and 2018. The number of these descriptions is not at all complete, however, it seems to give quite a representative survey of how has this vignette been interpreted throughout the last 250 years. Among these descriptions, merely five authors (H. Thiersch – 1909; F. Castagnoli – 1960; A. and M. Levi – 1967 and M. Reddé – 1979) believe that one of the elements of that vignette is a lighthouse. The article explains the origin of this erroneous interpretation on the basis of the edition of Tabula Peutingeriana from the year 1753, prepared by F.C. von Scheyb, and repeated by K. Mannert (1824), E. Desjardins (1869–1874) and K. Miller (1888), as well as of the observations in this field made by H. Gross (1913) and W. Kubitschek (1917). What is today regarded as the most probable interpretation of the element of that vignette, referred to as the lighthouse is the thesis that what is referred to here, is the Constantine’s Column, on whose top there is the statue of the founder of the Second Rome. If we assume the second half of the 4th century as the time when Tabula Peutingeriana was created, then the Constantinople vignette would be the oldest graphic presentation of that column. However, the graphics of the vignette is far from the descriptions of Constantine’s column in the Byzantine sources. That might result from a simple mistake made by the later copiers, or it can also be the effect of their conscious modifications of the most important vignettes on the map. For the Constantinople vignette, compared to the vignettes of Rome and Antioch, seems to contain a certain symbolic code, which allows for dating the copy of map stored today in Vienna. It seems that the original map could have been created, as it seems, in the 2nd half of the 4th century, as it is traditionally assumed. Probably it had been graphically retouched quite substantially (at least as far as the vignettes of Rome and Constantinople are concerned, joined in a strict mutual relationship) in the Carolingian period, and, more exactly, in the 1st half of the 9th century, and then, for the second time, the map underwent modifications aimed at updating its contents in the 13th century.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.164 · 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