Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter explores the involvement of women in Roman business, and the legal and economic significance, implications, and complications thereof. According to Papinian, “[i]n many aspects of Roman Law the situation of women (was) inferior to that of men.” Conservative social values and juridical precepts tenaciously upheld the concept of male control over property. And yet, in practice, juridical reality accommodated the needs of women working in commerce. Roman commercial law even purported to be gender-blind: any right available to a male was in general automatically extended to a female, and in matters of “commercial law,” women seem largely to have enjoyed juridical equality. In fact, both free and enslaved women engaged in an enormous variety of elevated mercantile undertakings, including widespread participation as principals in financial transactions, as buyers and sellers of substantial real estate, and in the ownership and operation of maritime vessels. At Rome, uniquely in the ancient world, according to Gaius, adult women handled their business matters for themselves. Of some 2,500 imperial rescripts on private legal matters dating from 117 to 305 ce and preserved in the Codex, approximately a quarter (about 650) are addressed to female petitioners, and similar gender ratios are attested in other significant business categories.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.265 | 0.083 |
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".