Bibliographic record
Abstract
<strong>This is an accepted article with a DOI pre-assigned that is not yet published.</strong> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14px;">Mapping fields using co-citation information is a common endeavor in many disciplines, but has rarely been performed in the humanities. In this article, I use data from 417 back-of-cook index locorums to map the field of ancient Mediterranean religion on three levels: sub-discipline, ancient work and references in ancient works. The method innovatively makes use of primary texts references, rather than research articles, to construct the co-citation network. After mapping the overall relationships between sub-disciplines, I show how the data can be used to identify two types of ancient works which bridge these sub-disciplines: works which are central for the whole network and works which are so central but nevertheless are cited more often with specific sub-disciplines. The article provides an understanding of the structure of the specific field, and more generally on the challenges and advantages of methods to map scholarship in historical disciplines. </span><br>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".