Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Oxyrhynchus historian’s account of late-fifth-century bc Athens is not preserved, but elements of his treatment of the oligarchic movement may be reconstructed from Aristotle and Diodorus Siculus. Particular attention is given here to the use of his distinctive political terminology by Isocrates, Aristotle, and Diodorus. The author, most likely Cratippus of Athens, sought to disguise his distaste for democracy by inventing a misleading connotation of the phrase “ancestral constitution” ( patrios politeia ) and by making Theramenes, a victim of the Thirty, into the champion of the patrios politeia . Le récit de l’historien d’Oxyrhynchus sur l’Athènes de la fin du V e siècle est perdu, mais il est possible de reconstruire certains éléments de son analyse du mouvement oligarchique en consultant Aristote et Diodore de Sicile. Nous nous intéresserons ici plus particulièrement à l’emprunt, par Isocrate, Aristote et Diodore, de la terminologie politique qui lui est propre. En effet, l’auteur, qu’il faut probablement identifier avec Cratippe d’Athènes, chercha à voiler son mépris pour la démocratie en attribuant à l’expression « constitution ancestrale » ( patrios politeia ) une connotation trompeuse, inventée par lui, et en faisant de Théramène, victime des Trentes, le champion de la patrios politeia .
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".