Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a rule in the historical tradition, over time the larger cast of characters behind a series of events, the king and his court, is distilled down to the person of a single actor, the king, while his ministers and lieutenants are consigned to oblivion. Alexander the Great is by and large an exception to this rule. His Companions play important roles in his reign and campaigns, his character is developed to a great extent in his relations with them, and they rise to prominence in their own right as his successors; they form an indispensable part of the memory of Alexander. This is certainly true of the account of Alexander in the Chronographia of John Malalas, the seminal work of the Byzantine chronicle tradition. The men surrounding Alexander are referred to repeatedly, in marked contrast to the other historical personages who feature in the Chronographia. The terms that Malalas uses of Alexander’s Companions, however, are unusual, and require some interpretation. And the prominence of his Companions in this narrative seems intended to contribute to an essentially, but subtly negative depiction of Alexander by recalling the most disreputable incidents in Alexander’s career, which usually involved his Companions.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".