MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117484354 · doi:10.1484/m.roma-eb.5.149821

La basilique paléochrétienne d’Ulmetum

2025· book-chapter· en· W7117484354 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Constantin Băjenaru, Cătălin Nopcea

Bibliographic record

VenueBrepols eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Religious Studies of Rome
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)DemolitionAltarSixth centuryMasonry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most important discovery made during the new systematic research carried out since 2004 in the late Roman fort of Ulmetum is undoubtedly that of the early Christian basilica. The building is located in the south-east corner of the fortification and around it we find other structures and arrangements, such as the adjoining street to the north and various annexes. The church has a three-nave plan, a possible narthex to the west side, and several rooms attached to the south and east sides at different times. It had a roof supported by two rows of columns, probably made of wood, arranged at regular distances, and the interior was paved with bricks. In the central area of the altar was the crypt, made in a rudimentary way, the whole structure being dug in loess, completely lacking masonry elements. Built shortly after the fortification was erected (the last quarter of the fourth century), the basilica initially functioned only until the third quarter of the fifth century. It was rebuilt in the middle of the sixth century, most likely during the Justinianic era, with some modifications in the plan, reaching the maximum expansion. Archaeological research has confirmed the end of the religious function and controlled demolition of the building at the end of the sixth century.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrepols eBooksSame topicHistorical and Religious Studies of RomeFrench-language works237,207