Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organization and operation of the Danubian limes had been a concern of the Roman imperial administration for several centuries. The strategic conception for this space was translated into practice directly with the support of the Roman army. One of the early arrived units in the Lower Danube area was cohors II Mattiacorum; detachments of the unit would flank the river, being stationed in the “bridgehead” fortifications of Dinogetia and Barboși. The history of this auxiliary unit may be broadly restored pegged solely by epigraphic records which we shall review below, together with historiographical discussions related to the completion and interpretation of their text.Although many of the opinions mentioned below remain mere hypotheses until new archaeological discoveries are made, I believe based on the documentary material that we know now, that the evolution of the cohors II Mattiacorum can be reconstructed with some accuracy. Obviously, any new epigraphic find may confirm or “colour” what we know now. The unit’s development spans more than a century from the last quarter of the 1st century AD to the end of the 2nd century AD, leaving more consistent traces at Dinogetia and Barboși, Sexaginta Prista and Sostra. We know the names of some soldiers and unit commanders and the fact that the unit was transformed somewhere in the middle of its existence into a milliariaunit.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".