MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376866592 · doi:10.23993/store.129801

Sources at the end of the cuneiform era

2023· article· en· W4376866592 on OpenAlexaff
Tero Alstola, Paola Corò, Rocío Da Riva, Sébastian Fink, Michael Jursa, Ingo Kottsieper, Martin Lang, M. Willis Monroe, Laurie Pearce, Reinhard Pirngruber, Kai Ruffing, Saana Svärd

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia Orientalia Electronica · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient Near East History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuneiformMesopotamiaSumerianAkkadianAssyriaAncient historyHistoryHellenistic periodPeriod (music)LiteratureSemitic languagesAlphabetArabicScripting languageClassicsExtant taxonArtLinguisticsPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this article is to discuss several groups of sources which are of special interest regarding the question of Mesopotamian identities after 539 bce, towards the end of the use of cuneiform writing. In this late period, several languages and scripts were in use in Mesopotamia; therefore, groups of Akkadian, Aramaic, Greek, and Sumerian texts are discussed. The scripts used are Aramaic letters, cuneiform, and the Greek alphabet. A scholar who is interested in late Mesopotamian identities needs to take all these documents into account. This article aims at giving a brief overview on available textual material and where to find it. The topics of these texts vary from administrative documents to highly literary texts. The authors discuss Aramaic inscriptions, legal and administrative cuneiform texts, the astronomical diaries, the Seleucid Uruk scholarly texts, the late Babylonian priestly literature, Emesal cult-songs from the Hellenistic period, the Graeco-Babyloniaca (clay tablets containing cuneiform and Greek), and finally Greek inscriptions from Mesopotamia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0100.013
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia Orientalia ElectronicaSame topicAncient Near East HistoryFrench-language works237,207