MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901636426

Megarian Local Adjudication: The Case of the Border Dispute between Epidauros and Corinth in 242-240 BCE (IG IV2.I.70 and 71)

2018· article· en· W2901636426 on OpenAlexaffabout
Philip J. Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient Near East History
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjudicationArbitrationLawPolitical scienceQuarter (Canadian coin)LeagueHistoryArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last quarter century, the study of interstate arbitration and the use of foreign judges to adjudicate disputes between city-states has been rejuvenated. This article re-examines the well-known Megarian adjudication of the border dispute between Epidauros and Corinth by the Achaean League in the 3rd century BCE, with a view to determining the reason for the Achaeans’ choice of Megara as judge and, more importantly, the acceptance of this decision by Corinth, given the less than friendly history between these two city-states.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAncient Near East HistoryFrench-language works237,207