MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205186755 · doi:10.1353/phx.2010.0000

"NUNDINAE": THE CULTURE OF THE ROMAN WEEK

2010· article· en· W4205186755 on OpenAlex
James Ker

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhoenix · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTopos theoryInscribed figureCrowdsHumanitiesConscienceArtHistoryPhilosophyLiteratureComputer scienceMathematicsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The eight-day nundinal cycle was, in its own way, as central to Roman experiences of time as other calendrical rhythms. Its role can be illustrated by considering some basic structural features (multi-functionality; superimposition; periodicity), by analyzing prominent literary topoi (on avoiding markets; on crowds), and by revisiting the inscribed nundinal lists from Roman Italy. Le cycle de huit jours qui constitue les nones Romaines était, à sa manière, fondamental à la conscience du temps des Romains ainsi qu'à d'autres cycles calendaires. On peut comprendre son rôle en examinant certaines caractéristiques structurelles fondamentales (multifonctionnalité, surimposition, périodicité), en analysant des topoi littéraires importants (éviter les marchés; les foules) et en réinterprétant les tables calendaires de l'Italie romaine.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.277 · 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