Bibliographic record
Abstract
The appearance of a Theban fleet of a hundred triremes in the Aegean Sea in 364 BC has always been an anomaly in the history of the Theban ascendancy. From the liberation of the Cadmea in 379 to the battle of Mantinea in 362 the Thebans had consistently pursued a land strategy, first against the Spartans and later against the Athenians, who had come to the aid of the enemy. In 367/6 Pelopidas won the support of the King for a Common Peace, which, however, was never ratified. Yet a connection with Persia had been made. Moreover, this diplomatic failure did not retard work on the Theban fleet, nor did it entail a break between Persia and Thebes. The usual strategy of the Persians for dealing with the eastern Aegean was to finance a Greek fleet as an agent of their policy in the area. The King and his satraps had employed both Athenian and Spartan fleets during the Ionian War and had provided Conon with the means to defeat the Spartans at the battle of Cnidus in 394. Themselves lacking the huge resources necessary for naval warfare, the Thebans needed foreign funds with which to build a fleet, and the only realistic source for them was the King. Diodorus is the principal, but not the only, source for these events. His testimony (15, 79, 1) is terse enough to be quoted in full: The people immediately decreed to build a hundred triremes and dockyards to accommodate them, and to urge Rhodes, Chios, and Byzantium to assist their schemes ( boēthēsai tais epibolais ). Epaminondas himself, who had been dispatched with a force to these cities, so overwhelmed the Athenian general Laches, who had a considerable fleet and had been sent out to circumvent the Thebans, that he forced him to withdraw, and he made the cities Thebes' own ( idias tas poleis tois Thēbaiois epoiēsen ).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".