Bibliographic record
Abstract
References to elephants captured by Alexander up until the battle of the Hydaspes (326 bc ) are awkward to explain, especially given that the beasts, according to the surviving accounts, filled the Macedonian and allied troops with terror in the same engagement. This is problematic if Alexander’s men had already encountered elephants, even if not in the context of a pitched battle. Moreover, analysis of the evidence suggests that Alexander, far from despising elephants, as our sources, and Curtius Rufus in particular, contend, regarded their possession as both politically and militarily important, and decided to incorporate the animals into the Macedonian army on this basis. Les références aux éléphants capturés par Alexandre avant la bataille de l’Hydaspe (326 avant J. C.) sont difficiles à expliquer, d’autant plus que, selon les récits disponibles, les bêtes remplirent de terreur Macédoniens et troupes alliées au cours de ce même affrontement. Cela pose problème si les hommes d’Alexandre avaient déjà rencontré des éléphants, fût-ce dans un contexte autre que celui d’une bataille rangée. De plus, l’analyse des témoignages suggère que, loin de mépriser les éléphants, comme le prétendent nos sources, et en particulier Quinte-Curce, Alexandre considérait leur possession comme importante d’un point de vue à la fois politique et militaire, et décida de ce fait d’incorporer ces animaux dans l’armée macédonienne.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".