The Authorship of the “Hellenika Oxyrhynchia”
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it