Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores Roman political theory on the legitimacy and use of emperors’ absolute power. Circa 55 C.E., Seneca, a Stoic philosopher and senior advisor to the Roman Emperor Nero, authored the treatise De Clementia, in which he advised the young emperor to rule with clemency and moderation. Despite the rich body of scholarship that examines this treatise, there is an absence of academic analyses that situate De Clementia within the context of the governmental mechanics of Rome. In this article, I argue that Seneca’s treatise depicts Nero’s supreme authority as contingent upon his capacity to uphold his obligations as an emperor. Further, I contend that this interpretation provides a genuine account of the political relations between Nero’s regime and Rome’s political elite that have not been examined in detail by previous scholarship on De Clementia. Finally, I posit that this treatise reveals how those operating at the top of Rome’s political hierarchy understood the emperor’s possession of absolute power to be tenuous and therefore cultivated tactics to maintain the longevity of the reigning regime.
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".