MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7056569471

Estudio del trazado regulador del foro de <i>Pollentia</i> (Alcudia, Mallorca)

2001· article· en· W7056569471 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlan (archaeology)Modular designPoint (geometry)General planQuarter (Canadian coin)Urban design
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Roman city of Pollentia in Mallorca, Spain, the layout of the buildings in the city forum and the street plan as designed by Roman land surveyors has been identified. This layout started from the centre point of the ediculum that was located to the southwest of the main temple. The ediculum was built as a regulating system for planning the city layout setting it out along the cardinal compass points and showing the relation of the dimensions of the buildings and the distances between them. The most recent excavations have confirmed that the Pollentia forum began to be built at the end of last quarter of 1st century B.C. At the same fime the land was levelled over the whole area of the studied constructions. The Pollentia regulating system based on an ediculum has been seen in other Roman cities and therefore it is not a unique case in Roman urban planning but a system frequently used for designing Roman cities. En la ciudad romana de Pollentia (Mallorca) se ha identificado el sistema de trazado regulador utilizado por los agrimensores para modular y planificar primero, y trazar y ordenar a continuación sobre el terreno los edificios del Foro, justificando su distribución e interrelación espacial, comprobando finalmente su posterior implicación en lo que significa la estructuración global de toda la ciudad. El punto inicial sería el centro de un edículo, única pieza del Foro orientada Norte-Sur, que permite definir la orientación de la trama urbana, el emplazamiento y proporciones de los diferentes edificios y viales del Foro, su modulación reguladora y su expansión hacia el resto de la ciudad. Este sistema de trazado regulador analizado y definido en Pollentia resulta ser un instrumento de trabajo apto para ser contrastado en los Foros de otras ciudades romanas tales como Pompeia, Ostia, Gabii, Cumes, Augusta Raurica, ... lo que implica que nos encontraríamos ante un método aplicado de manera bastante generalizada a la hora de proyectar una ciudad entera en la que se guardarían proporciones y emplazamientos perfectamente reglamentados entre sus edificios, siempre bajo la aplicación simultánea de dos criterios: una regulación geométrica global, que definiría ubicaciones de los edificios y espacios libres, y una regulación geométrica interior, que definiría las compartimentaciones interiores de los diversos edificios, sean públicos o particulares.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicLaser Design and Applications→French-language works237,207→