Bibliographic record
Abstract
In its Final form, the CASA Del Menandro was adorned with decorations which can be ascribed (leaving aside a few which are too simple or too damaged to be classified at all) to the late Second and Fourth Styles (see Figs. 2–3). Remains from other phases will be considered in the next section but none of these were visible in AD 79. The First Style pavements and painted stuccowork in the rooms excavated beneath the floor of room 18 (Figs. 27B, 64; Pl. 1) had of course been buried before AD 79, and they probably belonged to a separate house anyway. A piece of a First (or early Second) Style dado carrying a curtain motif, preserved inside the cupboard 10 (Fig. 27A), belongs to a phase when this space was a passage; it would have been out of sight in subsequent periods. Other remains of similarly early phases in the atrium area are chance survivals beneath later plaster. The only remnant of a Third Style decoration (Fig. 93B; Pl. 15) is on a fragment of plaster found (probably) in the pit in passage P1; and it clearly derives from a painted scheme which had been dismantled before the final years. All that was visible in 79, then, was work from the third quarter of the first century BC and the third quarter of the first century AD—what we have classified in terms of the structural history as the end of Phase 3 and Phase 5. The late-Second Style paintings and stuccoes are confined to the southern arm of the peristyle and the bath-suite. In the peristyle there is a relatively well-preserved painted scheme of trees seen through arched openings on the walls of exedra 25 (Col. Pl. 39; Figs. 77– 9) and a stucco decoration with birds in spiralling acanthus tendrils in the semi-dome of exedra 24 (Fig. 89D; Col. Pl. 38; Pl. 13); it appears that a similar stucco decoration adorned the semi-dome of exedra 22, but only a fragment of this survives.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.093 | 0.023 |
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.
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".