<i>CRETICUM OLEUM EXCELLENS</i> ? OLIVE OIL PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION ON ROMAN CRETE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crete’s economy under Roman rule is associated primarily with production and distribution of wine, an interpretation resulting from textual and archaeological data. Several scholars have commented on the potential of oleoculture within the economic structure of Roman Crete, including reference to olive oil as a good for export, but there has been minimal follow up that considers the specific evidence available and its ability to shed light on these practices. This paper critically considers the evidence for oleoculture on Crete during the Roman period and its prospective role in the economic life of the island, including a focus on evidence for olive cultivation and the extent to which this points to surplus production. While there are indications of olive oil production across different parts of Crete, oleoculture may have focused primarily on supporting regional economic needs across the island. Some degree of export likely did occur, perhaps on a small scale and intermittently, but evidence is lacking to develop any interpretation beyond that. Such analysis is important not only for consideration of the Roman economy of Crete but also for addressing questions and concerns around the standard contents of transport amphoras, which remain one of the most important archaeological proxies for studying economic networks and the distribution of different products. Analysis of trade routes and distribution often rely on direct correlations between amphora types and their contents, and this must always be critically assessed.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".