Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 395 BC the Corinthian War erupted between Sparta and its allies and an alliance of Thebes, Athens, Corinth, Argos, and others. At the time the Spartan king Agesilaus and a veteran force pursued a desultory campaign in the western satrapies of the Persian Empire. After Spartan armies had suffered defeat at the battle of Haliartus and fought the indecisive battle at Nemea River, the home government recalled Agesilaus and his force to defend Spartan interests in Greece. Spartan naval weakness compelled Agesilaus to make a long overland march back to Greece. Upon the king's entry into Boeotia on 14 August 394, he encountered a defending force of Thebans and their allies at the plain of Coronea in central Boeotia. The ensuing battle between these forces has more than marginal significance, for it can be demonstrated that larger developments stemmed from this event. To understand it all properly one must locate the actual site of the battle, correctly interpret the course of it, and then realize the historiographical implications of it and the merits of the ancient historians who recount it. THE BATTLEFIELD The sources for the location of the battlefield and for the course of the battle itself are abundant but of varying quality. The best, but perhaps the most refractory, is Xenophon, himself a field commander and a participant in the fighting. Diodorus of Sicily later epitomized the account of the fourth-century historian Ephorus, who was not especially esteemed, even in antiquity, for his knowledge of military affairs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".