MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4253316644 · doi:10.1017/ccol0521770440.002

Roman comedy

2001· book-chapter· en· W4253316644 on OpenAlexaff
Robert S Miola

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2001
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComedyComicsArtLiteratureDramaGreek literatureAncient Greek

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Romans laughed at a rich variety of comic entertainments, some surviving today only in fragments: scurrilous Fescennine verse, coarse, improvisational farce ( fabula Atellana ), mime ( fabula planipedia or riciniata ), drama featuring Italian characters in Italian settings ( fabula togata ). They also enjoyed the fabula palliata (a play dressed in a Greek cloak), in other words, a play set in Greece featuring Greek characters in Greek costumes. Deriving from Menander (fourth century bc) and other Greek writers, this kind of play also became known as New Comedy, in contradistinction to Old Comedy, the satirical, political, fantastic, obscene, and profound romps of the earlier Aristophanes (fifth century bc ). Both Greek and Roman New Comedy featured stock characters like the old man ( senex ), young girl ( virgo ), and clever slave ( servus callidus ); the action generally involved forbidden love affairs, misunderstandings, and confusions of identity. The works of two playwrights – Plautus and Terence – largely constitute the extant corpus of Roman comedy. Inventive and exuberant, Plautus ( c . 205–184 bc ) emphasizes musical elements and verbal jokes. His twentyone surviving plays include a mythological travesty ( Amphitruo ), deceptions ( Pseudolus, Epidicus ), confusions of identity ( Menaechmi, Casina ), a revels ( Stichus ), and a moral fable ( Captivi ). The six surviving plays of Terence ( c . 160 bc ) thoughtfully adapt conventions to explore human relations.

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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0810.023

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicClassical Antiquity Studies→French-language works237,207→