Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The chapter reviews the evidence for collections of verse inscriptions from Rome, known as syllogae, that circulated in Anglo-Saxon England and in Francia in the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, and discusses the ways in which these collections could act as itineraries for readers who had never travelled to Rome. It discusses the importance of inscriptions for imparting knowledge of the city of Rome and its churches, and as exemplars for verses for local buildings, and for reinforcing the importance of Rome in the minds of the faithful in distant places. Sylloges found in a manuscript written in Francia in the second quarter of the ninth century and later associated with Lorsch are analysed, especially the fourth Lorsch sylloge that records numerous inscriptions from St Peter’s, including one quoted by Hadrian in a letter to Charlemagne written in 793. Two epigrams in that collection are shown to have special resonance for Charlemagne and his queen, Hildegard, and can probably be dated to the king’s visits to Rome in 774 and 781. Another closely contemporary Frankish manuscript, made for Archbishop Arn of Salzburg, c.800, contains an itinerary of St Peter’s basilica concentrating on the oratories and transept on the south side. The itineraries contained in a similarly dated manuscript from Einseideln likewise reveal a contemporary Frankish vision of Rome.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.014 |
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".