Silio Itálico: un poeta épico para conocer, estudiar y disfrutar en el s. XXI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this article is to show Silius Italicus in an innovative line of current \nPhilology, through which we must put on the table the background and life of this \nLatin author in the first century a. C., and very specially his work, an epic poem called \nPunica, with the references to its editions, reviews, translations and, of course the \nprincipal acknowledged research. \nSo, the purpose is to answer to a statement of intentions that it is into the title, and \nthat could not be other than to draw attention on the author and his work so that, \nonce having looked into some of the interesting aspects of both, may be object of \nstudy in any of the teachings of the current education system, at secondary and uni-\nversity higher education level and, at the same time, be enjoyed by students, profes-\nsors, researchers and all lovers of humanities in general, particularly by the classical \nworld, and especially by Latin literature.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
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".