MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060353616 · doi:10.1515/byzs.2010.001

The Date of Theognostos' <i>Orthography</i>: A Reappraisal

2010· article· en· W2060353616 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Θεοδώρα Αντωνοπούλου

Bibliographic record

VenueByzantinische Zeitschrift · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicByzantine Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNinthOrthographyMagnum opusEmperorReignParallelsHistorySubject (documents)Quarter (Canadian coin)ClassicsLiteratureAncient historyPhilosophyArtLawLinguisticsArchaeologyPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Theognostos is a well-known author of a surviving orthographical work and a lost history of the revolt of Euphemios in Sicily. Although the dating of the Orthography was the subject of controversy in the distant past, the issue has long been considered as settled: the work is generally thought to have been dedicated to Emperor Leo V (813–820), not Leo VI (886–912), as the opposite opinion held. The present article reexamines the problem on the basis of a re-evaluation of all available evidence as well as by bringing new parallels into the discussion. The solution reached goes some way in-between the two previous propositions. According to it, the Orthography would still derive from Theognostos' teaching experience in the first half of the ninth century (its second quarter in particular), but would date from mid-century. The dedication of the author's magnum opus would have taken place much later, in the very early reign of Leo VI, for reasons also discussed here. Thus, Theognostos emerges as a ninth-century figure and a contemporary of Patriarch Photios.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Theoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Other

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueByzantinische ZeitschriftSame topicByzantine Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207