MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What and Where? Revised Overview of Base Extent

2019· book-chapter· en· W3103419921 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Simon James

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient Mediterranean Archaeology and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchaeologyQuarter (Canadian coin)Sign (mathematics)Base (topology)GeographyAncient historyCartographyHistoryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Archaeological evidence indicates that, during the final halfcentury of the life of the city, the area directly annexed by the military was significantly larger than the original excavators realized. In addition to concentrations of soldiers around the gates and defences, and at various places within the ‘civil’ town, the military came to control a single continuous swathe of the urban interior, comprising the entire N part of the walled area from the W defences to the river cliffs, and extending as far as the S end of the Citadel, plus the floor of the inner wadi right down to Lower Main St opposite the (by Durene standards) showy C3 bath, which it also apparently built. This area totals c.13.5 ha (c.33 acres)—a literal quarter of the intramural area which today covers c.52 ha (c.118 acres, measured from the CAD plan of the city by Dan Stewart; both city and base were slightly bigger in antiquity, before loss of the River Gate and parts of the Citadel). In its final form, the base included several distinct zones (Pl. XXIII). The NW part of the city had become a military enclosure, bounded on the E side by a continuous wall down the W side of G St, incorporating the street facades of the E3 bath and E4 house. On the S it was defined by the ‘camp wall’ from the city defences to D St; with no sign of a wall across blocks F5 or F7, the perimeter between D and F Sts is inferred. It must be presumed that, as to the W, the 8th-St-fronting properties of the two blocks were taken over, but that the party walls comprising the boundary with civil housing to the S was not further elaborated. These lines converged on the amphitheatre, which formed the corner of the enclosure. This perimeter of the NW enclosure involved physically blocking Wall, A, C, D, and 10th Sts. A major entrance was on 8th St, at G St between the amphitheatre and the E4 house.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.011
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.012

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.143 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicAncient Mediterranean Archaeology and HistoryFrench-language works237,207