Chronological List of Cicero’s Known Appearances as an Advocate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extract This list is meant for quick reference. Further details and discussion may be found in editions of the published speeches, in Jane W. Crawford, M. Tullius Cicero: The Lost and Unpublished Orations (Göttingen, 1984) and M. Tullius Cicero: The Fragmentary Speeches, 2nd edn. (Atlanta, 1994), and in Michael C. Alexander, Trials in the Late Roman Republic 149 b.c. to 50 b.c. (Toronto, 1990). Titles of Cicero’s extant speeches are printed in bold type. Appearances of Unknown Date: 1 In this instance, early in Cicero’s career, success would provide an obvious motive for publication which otherwise would be lacking. T. E. Kinsey in his edition (Sydney, 1971), followed by Alexander (Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 65) suggests that Cicero lost, but gives no clear evidence to prove this. 2 Cicero’s opponent was C. Aurelius Cotta; it is generally supposed that Cotta claimed ownership of the woman as...
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.231 | 0.071 |
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".