Comments on <scp>M</scp>. <scp>K</scp>uhle and <scp>S</scp>. <scp>K</scp>uhle (2012): ‘<scp>H</scp>annibal Gone Astray? A Critical Comment on <scp>W</scp>. <scp>C</scp>. <scp>M</scp>ahaney <i>et al</i>., “The <scp>T</scp>raversette (<scp>I</scp>talia) Rockfall: Geomorphological Indicator of the <scp>H</scp>annibalic <scp>I</scp>nvasion <scp>R</scp>oute” (<i><scp>A</scp>rchaeometry</i>, 52, 1 [2010] 156–72)’
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The title of K uhle and K uhle's (2012) (hereafter K & K 2012) paper in A rchaeometry appears to be mostly a tirade against the T raversette R oute of H annibal's A rmy, as originally favoured by S ir G avin de B eer—a man possessed of singular scientific experience and near‐singular interest in Carthaginian history—in the mid‐part of the last century. The mere fact that M ahaney et al . (2010a,c) added to de B eer's corpus of evidence that H annibal followed the southern route appears to have brought K & K (2012) to lodge not only a protest, but one of accusatory tone, stating that M ahaney et al . (2010c) had erroneously misinterpreted historical texts to prove the C ol de la T raversette as the P unic A rmy col of passage into I talia. Aside from the fact that the tone of these allegations rises to a curious level, it is the intention of this discussion to put facts where they belong, rooted in what is known of the H annibalic I nvasion and what is inferred by the prevailing scientific evidence. It is important to note that there is not one preferred route as stated by K & K (2012), but three in fact (see Fig. 1 (a) in M ahaney et al . 2010c), and all have been discussed by a legion of historians (see, e.g., F reshfield 1886, 1899; de B eer 1969; P roctor 1971; P revas 1998; M ahaney 2008).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.028 | 0.031 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.014 |
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 it