MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W348390269 · doi:10.1353/mou.2011.0031

Saturnalia Clamata : Noise and Speech in Flavian Literary Saturnalias

2011· article· fr· W348390269 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Blake

Bibliographic record

VenueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of Canada · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLicenseNoise (video)PoetryLiteraturePoliticsHistoryArtLinguisticsLawPolitical sciencePhilosophyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the noise associated with the Roman holiday of Saturnalia. The loud noise and chaotic sounds associated with the celebration of the festival are set against the traditional “free speech” of the Saturnalia, i.e., the license to speak freely granted to slaves and the lower classes for the duration of the holiday. Through analysis of the noise and speech associated with the festival in the contemporary poetry of Martial and Statius, the paper illuminates some political aspects of individual and collective speech and noise-making in Flavian Rome. Cet article porte sur le bruit associé à la fête romaine des Saturnales. Les bruits forts et les sons chaotiques associés à la célébration du festival sont mis en parallèle avec la traditionnelle « liberté de parole » des Saturnales, c’est-à-dire la permission de parler librement accordée aux esclaves et aux classes inférieures pour la durée de la fête. Par l’analyse du bruit et du discours liés au festival dans la poésie contemporaine de Martial et de Stace, cet article met en lumière certains aspects politiques du discours et de la cacophonie, produits individuellement ou collectivement, dans la Rome de l’époque flavienne.

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)0.001
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 score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of CanadaSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207