MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396802331 · doi:10.1353/phx.2023.a926366

Roman Marital Ideals and Aurelia Philematium: Casta, Pudens … Married at Seven?

2023· article· fr· W4396802331 on OpenAlex
Alison Jeppesen-Wigelsworth

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhoenix · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Studies and Legal History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHistoryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Based on her epitaph, Aurelia Philematium is viewed as an exemplar of Roman marital ideals. A close examination of the relief and analysis of the monument within a larger sample of inscriptions reveal elements that belie this portrayal. This article argues that the depiction of Philematium and its disproportionate influence on scholarly perception of Roman marital ideals need to be reexamined. Réesumé: D'après son épitaphe, Aurelia Philematium est vue comme un exemple de l'idéal conjugal romain. En réalisant un examen poussé du bas-relief et en replaçant le monument dans un ensemble plus large d'inscriptions, l'on dévoile certains éléments qui démentent cette caractérisation. Cet article soutient que la description de Philematium et son influence disproportionnée sur la manière dont les chercheurs perçoivent l'idéal conjugal romain doivent être réévaluées.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.210 · 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