Bibliographic record
Abstract
Broad consensus now exists that the Hellenika Oxyrhynchia must have been authored by either Kratippos of Athens or Theopompos of Chios, with Kratippos favored by most scholars. This paper makes the case for Theopompos as author, based on re-dating his birth to the late fifth century bc , arguments that the Hellenika Oxyrhynchia did contain speeches, the evidence of Diodoros’ use of the Hellenika Oxyrhynchia and knowledge of Theopompos, and other objective criteria regarding style, word choice, and length and contents of the work, particularly emphasizing the Pedaritos excursus common to both Diodorus and the Helenika Oxyrhynchia . Les chercheurs s’entendent maintenant presque tous pour voir en Cratippe d’Athènes ou en Théopompe de Chios l’auteur des Helléniques d’Oxyrhynchos . Bien que Cratippe reçoive l’appui de la majorité, la présente étude avance des arguments en faveur de Théopompe, dont la date de naissance devrait être révisée et placée vers la fin du V e siècle. On sait que Diodore puisait des renseignements dans les Helléniques et qu’il connaissait l’œuvre de Théopompe. En outre, ces deux historiens partagent la digression sur Pédaritos. Il faut aussi prendre en considération les critères stylistiques et lexicographiques, la longueur et le contenu de chaque œuvre, et les arguments qui indiqueraient que les Helléniques contenaient des discours.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".