MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Bâtiments privés sur sol public ? : les maisons en terrasse de Pompéi entre le forum et les murailles

2015· dissertation· W7147741876 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sandra Zanella

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistorical heritageGully erosionNova scotiaWorld heritage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les maisons de Pompéi sujets de cette recherche (Casa di Championnet I et II : Casa dei Mosaici geometrici), nous ont permis d’analyser un point privilégié de Pompéi. Bâties dans la zone au sud du forum, en partie en utilisant les remparts de la ville, ces édifices se caractérisant pour se développer sur plusieurs niveaux de terrasses qui échelonnent vers la plaine du fleuve Sarno et les horrea de Pompéi. Cette conformation particulière fait de ces édifices un point de première importance pour observer l’évolution urbanistique de Pompéi entre IIIe siècle avant notre ère et sa destruction en 79. En appliquant les principes de la stratigraphie du bâti, nous avons pu identifier les phases de développement de celle qui est aujourd’hui la plus grande maison connue à Pompéi, fruit de l’union de plusieurs édifices indépendants. Ce travail, au-delà de permettre une étude de détail d’un monument particulier, permet de poser un regard nouveau sur l’intégralité du tissu urbain de Pompéi. L’analyse de ces édifices en lien avec les résultats venant des récentes recherches stratigraphiques pratiquées dans de multiples points de la ville, permet de recevoir l’évolution du site samnite et romain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical and Literary Studies→French-language works237,207→