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
At some time in the second quarter of the second century AD, the controversial sophist–philosopher Favorinus seems to have delivered a speech in Corinth, complaining about the removal of a statue which had previously been erected there in his honour. In doing so he was addressing the inhabitants of a city which occupied an unusual – in many ways unique – position between Greek and Roman identity: Corinth had been sacked by Roman forces in 146 BC, and then refounded as a Roman colony more than one hundred years later, and even in the second century AD it was still sometimes represented as a Roman intrusion within the Greek world, even though it had been strongly influenced by the Greek populations surrounding it in the intervening years. My aim in this article is to examine Favorinus' Corinthian Oration in the light of the cultural ambiguities of its setting. Despite increasing interest in Favorinus in recent years, and despite an increasing volume of archaeological evidence for Corinthian life in the second century, there have been very few detailed readings of the speech's complexities, and even fewer which have recognized the way in which it is crucially anchored within its Corinthian context.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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