Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article convoque la notion de nuisance sensorielle au sujet d’un secteur professionnel de l’Occident romain : l’accueil mercantile, associé au métier du caupo, de l’aubergiste. Ce secteur professionnel, et surtout une de ses branches, la restauration commerciale, ont engendré, chez les auteurs anciens, de nombreuses plaintes contre les désagréments qu’ils auraient occasionnés aux sens : fumées blessant l’odorat et la vue, bruits heurtant les oreilles, etc. Dans les sources littéraires qui s’en font l’écho, la difficulté est de faire la part entre le lieu commun, le biais sociologique et la réalité quotidienne de ces établissements. À partir d’une lettre de Sidoine Apollinaire, qui, à la fin du Ve siècle, produit un condensé descriptif des nuisances sensorielles associées à l’auberge et à la popina dans le contexte culturel romain, on analyse les motifs parcourant la littérature latine, en les confrontant autant que possible aux réalités observables dans les vestiges archéologiques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".