MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Consular power and the Roman constitution: the case of imperium reconsidered

2011· book-chapter· en· W942232211 on OpenAlexaff
Hans Beck

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBanquetPoliticsPower (physics)ConstitutionHonorAudience measurementClassicsValue (mathematics)LiteratureArtHistoryLawPolitical scienceArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Why was it,” Plutarch asks in Roman Questions no. 80, “that when [the Romans] gave a public banquet for men who had celebrated a triumph, they formally invited the consuls and then sent word to them requesting that they not come to the dinner?” It was “because it was imperative that the place of honor at the table and an escort home after dinner should be assigned to the man who had triumphed. But these honors can be given to no one else when the consuls are present, but only to them.” Plutarch's Roman Questions are a hotchpotch of distinct cultural practices and traditional codes of behavior. Throughout long sections of the work, it appears to be a random collection of curiosities rather than a treatise that is geared toward a stringent analysis of typically Roman customs and socio-political institutions. But this does not undermine the work's value as a historical source. Beyond the actual information related (sparse as it may be, at times), the Roman Questions shed light on the silent assumptions of Roman political life. In his attempt to familiarize his readership with select political or social practices, Plutarch alludes to the very basic implications of those practices. Question no. 80 illustrates the case: the practice of inviting consuls to triumphal banquets and then telling them not to come appeared to be a peculiarity and hence was deemed worthy of relating. But it also discloses some of the most vital features of Roman political culture. It operates on the assumption that the consuls were the highest magistrates not only in the field ( militiae ) but also at home, within the sacred boundary of the city ( domi ). Whenever present, they were to be included in public events and preside over them. Moreover, while the consuls claimed the right of highest honor, the story makes it clear that there were other distinctions, such as a triumphator's rights and privileges, which under certain circumstances challenged the superior power of a consul, whether present or not. And third, Plutarch reveals that if such a conflict between authorities arose, the Romans were not shy about practical solutions that enabled them to navigate around the provisions of their constitution without actually abandoning it. The messenger sent to the consuls was a go-between that kept everyone's honor intact – at least as long as everybody played along.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0310.048
Scholarly communication0.0190.009
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0100.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.232
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations47
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207