Historical archives from the Roman Monarchic and Republican periods show human perceptions of environment and climate change in Italy, 753–29 BCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historical archives for the Roman Monarchic and Republican periods (753–29 BCE) offer a highly resolved series of observations of environmental and climatic phenomena in Central Italy. This paper presents a new collection of these historical archives, gathering 319 observations across the period. We introduce the historical character of these archives and point out aspects affecting their analysis and interpretation for reconstruction of past environmental and climatic conditions in Italy in the latter half of the first millenium BCE. Archival information is seen to be generally reliable from the fifth century BCE onward, providing a valuable source about regional past climate. The historical archives’ anecdotal nature along with complexities of their formation and transmission encourage cautious and closely contextualized interpretation, and we advocate the use of this information most of all to understand Romans’ changing experience of environment and climate. We offer comparison of this data to current understanding of regional climate conditions based on scientific proxies, especially speleothems and marine cores. These records show some convergence with the historical archives, and we discuss the possibility that this may reflect a relatively warm, wet climate period (Roman Warm Period) in Italy coterminous with Rome’s initial phase of imperial expansion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".