Book Review: The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces. Volume Three: Provincial Cult; Part One: Institution and Evolution. By Duncan Fishwick. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2002. Pp. xvi + 259. Cloth, $137.00. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces. Volume Three: Provincial Cult; Part Two: The Provincial Priesthood. By Duncan Fishwick. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2002. Pp. 324. Cloth, $144.00. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces. Volume Three: Provincial Cult; Part Three: The Provincial Centre; Provincial Cult. By Duncan Fishwick. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2004. Pp. 397. Cloth, $150.00. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces. Volume Three: Provincial Cult; Part Four: Bibliography, Indices, Addenda. By Duncan Fishwick. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2005. Pp. 256. Cloth, $136.00
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.025 |
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".