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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rome’s mid-republican period is back in the centre of attention. Roman money and coinage, however, are largely absent from the debate. As this field has seen important developments in recent years, this paper surveys recent research in order to explore how numismatic sources can contribute to our understanding of this formative period in Roman history. First, we present an overview of these new developments, which we then contextualise in the framework of the Roman economy, Roman state formation and the development of a distinct Roman identity. We argue for a development from coinage irregularly commissioned by individual Roman magistrates to a regular Roman state coinage; from haphazard production often outside Rome to large-scale and more regular coordinated production clearly institutionalised within the Roman state, with a distinct Roman appearance. We propose to recognise two principal moments of acceleration in this process: around 240 and, above all, 210 b.c.e. , and show how these insights relate to broader debates on mid-republican Rome.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it