MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1856703193

Julian and The Decision to Fight: Strasbourg, 357

2010· article· en· W1856703193 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Adam Glen Hough

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Graduate History Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBattleVictoryAdversaryAncient historyEmpireHistoryLawPolitical sciencePoliticsComputer scienceComputer security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the year 357, the armies of the Alamanni king Chnodomar crossed the Rhine and assembled just north of present day Strasbourg. Answering this challenge was the western empire’s new Caesar, Julian (known to wider circles as Julian the Apostate). Ammianus Marcellinus, one of our primary sources for details of Julian’s Gallic campaign, tells us that going into the battle, Julian’s forces were significantly outnumbered. Despite this apparent disadvantage, however, Julian won a decisive victory, routing an enemy perhaps 35,000 strong,(though there is debate as to whether or not this figure is plausible) while only losing 243 men. This engagement, and particularly its outcome, raises a number of questions. First among them, why would Julian consent to pitched battle against such an overwhelming force?

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Graduate History ReviewSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207