Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study of all the numbers in the more complete portions of the Florentine and London fragments of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia , using a methodology that captures a standard constellation of aspects of each number, makes it possible to create a statistical profile of that work’s numeric practice. Comparison of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia ’s numeric profile with those of the six earliest extant works of Greek history (Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon’s Anabasis and Hellenica , Polybius, and Diodorus Siculus) makes one more aware both of this author’s position in the development of Greek historiographic tradition and of his individuality. More specifically, it generates some new observations on particular passages of this much-studied text, which call into question some of the restorations proposed by editors who strove to produce the closest possible correspondence between the narrative of the papyrus historian and that of Diodorus. Une étude systématique des nombres dans les parties les mieux préservées des fragments de Florence et de Londres des Helléniques d’Oxyrhynchos , au moyen d’une méthodologie rigoureuse, permet l’élaboration d’un profil statistique de l’utilisation des nombres dans cette œuvre. Si on compare les résultats obtenus avec les données correspondantes dans les six œuvres historiques grecques les plus anciennes à avoir survécu (Hérodote, Thucydide, l’ Anabase et les Helléniques de Xénophon, Polybe et Diodore de Sicile), on saisit mieux non seulement la position de l’auteur anonyme des Helléniques dans le développement de la tradition historiographique grecque, mais aussi son individualité. En outre, et quoique ce texte ait déjà été l’objet de nombreuses études, on peut faire de nouvelles observations sur certains passages et remettre en question certaines restitutions justifiées par le désir de produire une correspondance aussi parfaite que possible entre ce texte et celui de Diodore.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".