MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159234585 · doi:10.7834/phoenix.67.3-4.0353

CLIENT PREFECTS?: ROME AND THE COTTIANS IN THE WESTERN ALPS

2013· article· en· W3159234585 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carolynn Roncaglia

Bibliographic record

VenuePhoenix · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and language evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

introductionWhen Augustus and the Romans conquered the central and western Alps at the end of the first century b.c.e., most of the newly subjugated regions were brought under direct Roman control.The central portion of the western Alps, however, was left in the hands of a native dynasty, the Cottians, where it remained until the reign of Nero over a half-century later.The Cottians thus serve as one of many examples of a form of indirect Roman rule, its "two-level monarchy," wherein the rulers of smaller kingdoms governed as friends and allies of the Roman state in an asymmetrical power relationship with Rome. 1 This article explores how a native dynasty like the Cottians presented and legitimized their relationship with Rome to a domestic audience.Although similar work has been done before with regard to the better attested dynasties of the eastern borders, the Cottians present a rare opportunity to examine in the context of the Celtic west the self-presentation of reges socii ("allied kings") who reigned alternatively as kings and prefects.2 Relationships between Rome and its reges socii date back at least to the middle republic and continued on in the Bosporus until the fourth century c.e. 3 They existed across the Roman world, from Britain to the Black Sea and from Mauretania to Judaea. 4 The not uncommon classification of these allied kings I owe thanks to Bridget Buxton for generously providing me with copies of her unpublished manuscript, to Patrick Hunt for supplying me with extra images of material at Susa, to Erich Gruen for reading a draft, and to the anonymous referees of Phoenix.An early version of this research was presented at the Berkeley Ancient Italy Roundtable, and I am indebted to the organizers of that conference as well as to all those who provided feedback.All errors are of course exclusively my own.1 Millar 1996: 244.For surveys of recent scholarship on Rome's allied kings, see Cos ¸kun 2005b and 2008a; Kaizer and Facella 2010; and Wilker 2008.Still essential are Braund 1984; Cimma 1976; Millar 1996; and Paltiel 1991.For bibliography on particular dynasties and rulers, see the database of Amici Populi Romani (Cos ¸kun 2012).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.198 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhoenixSame topicLinguistics and language evolutionFrench-language works237,207