Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to analyzing the problems of dating classical kantharoi produced in the workshops of Asia Minor, Macedonia, Thessaly, Thrace and other ancient centers of the last third of the 4th – the middle – end of the 2nd c. BC. These problems are closely related to the issues of identifying centers of their production. The formulation and resolution of these issues have aroused an increased interest recently. The article presents the main characteristics of classical kantharos forms depending on time and center of their manufacture. The paper collects information on published fragments and whole vessels and publishes for the first time five late non-attic kantharoi found on the territory of Panticapaeum and Tanais. Besides, it considers general trends and features in the development of such forms. The morphological comparison of non-attic kantharoi and their attic prototypes makes it possible to draw a conclusion on their synchronous development. The analysis of forms and proportions of two of the three main varieties of kantharoi, which belong to the Pontic Hellenistic ceramics group, as well as their contexts including sites in the North Pontic region, gives us the possibility to follow the form transformation in the direction of changing proportions, namely, their profile elongation and/or gradual body decrease in the third quarter of the 3rd – the beginning/middle of the 2nd c. BC. In addition, it allows to trace in the third variant the further development of the form to the complete body schematization, which appeared in the middle or the third quarter of the 2nd c. BC.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".