The Extramural Settlement at Vindolanda in the Early Second Century CE: Defining a Glocalized Environment on the Romano-British Frontier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examining the Roman military settlement at Vindolanda, this article explores the archaeology of the northern frontier of the Roman empire in a glocalization framework, investigating the site during a specific occupation period to understand how the material culture found there operated within its particular local context. The soldiers and the extended military communities of auxiliary settlements that dominated the imperial frontiers make a complicated and intriguing case study because of their origins as subaltern and conquered subjects of imperial rule, followed by incorporation into the Roman army. A close examination of the extramural settlement outside the fort at Vindolanda in the site’s Period 4 (ca. 105–120 CE) allows the opportunity to apply a glocal lens to the architecture, foodways, literacy, and dress preserved in the material record. We are presented with a picture of adoption, adaptation, and retention that ultimately can be understood only as the result of ongoing change and creation in a multilayered imperial context. These spaces and their material culture are fully analyzed here, with careful consideration of the community present at Vindolanda, in order to tease out the unique and novel outcomes that this population created in their local context.1
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".