MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389634663 · doi:10.1353/phx.2022.a914297

Indigenous Coinages in Palestine: Towards an Understanding of the Persian-Hellenistic Transitional Monetary Phase

2022· article· fr· W4389634663 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haim Gitler, Oren Tal

Bibliographic record

VenuePhoenix · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalestineHumanitiesAdministration (probate law)Political scienceAncient historyHistoryArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This paper surveys the minting authorities and royal mints of Palestine under the Achaemenids (ca 450–332 b.c.e.), Graeco-Macedonians (332–301 b.c.e.), and Ptolemies (301–198 b.c.e.) in order to address questions of continuity and change in the monetary administration of the southernmost regions of Coele-Syria. The transformation from minting authorities to royal mints between the periods of Persian and Hellenistic dominations is analyzed against the political reality of Palestine at the time. Abstract: Cet article passe en revue les autorités frappant monnaie et les ateliers royaux de frappe de monnaie en Palestine sous les Achéménides (332–301 a. C.) et sous les Ptolémées (301–198 a. C.) afin d'aborder les questions de continuité et de changement dans l'administration monétaire des régions australes de Cœlé-Syrie. Le passage d'un système où la frappe de monnaie est confiée à certaines autorités à un système où cette frappe est faite par des ateliers royaux, qui s'est produit entre les périodes à domination perse et hellénistique, est examiné sur le fond de la réalité politique de la Palestine à cette période.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhoenixSame topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207