Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter, I explore the relationship between the forms of Athenian building accounts as presented by relevant officials at their annual euthynae, as deposited in a state archive on perishable materials, and as carved on marble in public places. Various forms and probable purposes of inscribed building documents are discussed, with particular attention given to the factors behind preserving or omitting the names of workers. \nAs is well known, the Periclean inscriptions mention no builders' names and very few construction details. In contrast, minute recording of what was done and by whom is, on the face of it, a salient feature of the accounts of the Erechtheion, whereas the Eleusinian documents mention dozens of names, but selectively, as will be shown. \nIn my talk, I tried to establish the following arguments: \na)\tWhile the form of each building inscription may have correlated with the purpose of its erection, it depended heavily on sources available. Due to the euthynae, financial accounts were always there, whilst no other relevant document may have existed. \nb)\tAccordingly, even if commemorating the builders' names may have been one of the reasons for engraving the accounts from the Erechtheion and Eleusis (as well as from Epidaurus and Delos), this aim has been only partially achieved, as I shall argue. I argue that the anonymous workmen at the Erechtheion and Eleusis were unnamed in the original documents, and perhaps it was true for earlier projects, too. The authorities did not go out of their way to find out information, absent from financial accounts, even where it could have been obtained relatively easily. \nFinally, I discuss broader implications of these conclusions as to the role of archives and documents in classical Athens.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".