Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ancient Greek city of Kleitor lies in a small valley in north central Arkadia. Although only recently the target of systematic excavations, the first plan of its remains was published almost 200 years ago. While this earliest plan is essentially correct in the details, it is also a simple schematic representation with little topographical detail. When a revised plan of the site – comprising a much more skillful representation of the topography – was published in the late 19th century, it soon supplanted the original in the scholarship. Hidden behind its topographic accuracy and artistic flourishes, however, lies the fact that the mapping of the archaeological remains themselves was incorrect. Consequently, as this plan continued to be modified and reproduced throughout the following century, so too were its mistakes duplicated and exaggerated. Showing the cartographical evolution in the representation of ancient Kleitor and its reception by scholars, this paper demonstrates how scholars have constructed their interpretations of the remains around the unintentional predisposition to equate artistic quality with accuracy, and the consequences of this bias on the archaeological interpretations of the site.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".