MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7130273546

A quarter of imperial Rome : the Trajan's forum in its urban environment : modification of landscape, architectural solutions and circulation system

2016· article· it· W7130273546 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claudio Taffetani

Bibliographic record

Venuetheses.fr (ABES) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Religious Studies of Rome
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban environmentCirculation (fluid dynamics)Urban planningQuarter (Canadian coin)Urban history
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le projet urbanistique et architectural lié à la construction du forum de Trajan à Rome (106 et 113 ap. J.-C) s’inscrit dans la tradition de ceux qui l’ont précédé. Pourtant ses dimensions et les travaux colossaux nécessaires à son établissement en font un projet particulièrement exceptionnel qui a entraîné la transformation totale de l’ensemble de la zone située entre les collines du Capitole et du Quirinal. Cette étude porte sur les modalités de ce réaménagement et ses conséquences non seulement sur la zone du forum, mais également sur l’ensemble du tissu urbain de la ville. Il s’agit d’analyser ce grand programme architectural en soulignant, comment, au-delà de la réalisation de la place publique, a été conçu, autour du complexe impérial, tout un ensemble urbanistique cohérent et surtout entièrement structuré par un nouveau système de circulation complexe. Le contexte urbain avant et après la réalisation du forum sont successivement étudiés et une attention particulière est accordée aux solutions architecturales adoptées afin d’intégrer les nouvelles constructions dans le tissu urbain préexistant. L’objectif est de reconstruire chronologiquement toute l’organisation urbanistique de la zone et de déterminer dans quelle mesure la construction du forum de Trajan a conditionnée le développement de l’Urbs dans son ensemble.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuetheses.fr (ABES)Same topicHistorical and Religious Studies of RomeFrench-language works237,207