Bibliographic record
Abstract
The battle of Tegyra has seldom received systematic treatment, with the notable exception of W. K. Pritchett's study. That is hardly surprising, for it was little more than a skirmish that goes unmentioned even in Nepos' sketch of Pelopidas' life. Nevertheless, other scholars have used the episode to determine the sources used by Plutarch, the major authority on it, in his composition of the Life of Pelopidas . More voluminous is the literature on the site of the battle and the topography of the battlefield. The battle, despite the small numbers involved, also provides an additional point of interest regarding what Plutarch could add from his own knowledge to his narrative. He had himself seen Tegyra and thus enjoyed the opportunity to compare his observations with the testimony of earlier historians. The history of Boeotia between the liberation of the Cadmea in 378 and the battle of Tegyra in 375 is one of innumerable and sometimes desultory campaigns and raids. For the most part, the Spartans placed garrisons in strategically important cities, notably Tanagra, Plataea, Thespiae, and Orchomenus, from which the Thebans attempted to dislodge them. Orchomenus was the most dangerous point because of its natural strength, the hostility of its inhabitants to Theban hegemony of Boeotia, its easy communications with neighbouring Phocis, and the facility with which the Spartans could push reinforcements across the Corinthian Gulf to Cirrha and thence to Orchomenus. Aware of these dangers, Pelopidas long awaited the opportunity to assail Orchomenus at a moment's notice (Plut. Pel . 16, 2).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".