Bibliographic record
Abstract
No face is more recognized as the ideal of ancient male beauty than Antinous and yet little is known about his life. Scholars have used his relationship with the Emperor Hadrian as evidence for their own means. This relationship has gone from a sordid and scandalous affair to purely platonic and educational, depending on the personal orientations of the scholars and the cultural trends of their age. The controversy about Antinous began immediately: the establishment of his cult after his death was mocked by contemporaries as an exaggeration and inappropriate mourning. Soon after it was fuel for Christian critics about the arbitrary nature of pagan deities. However, in Hadrian’s lifetime the cult became an established sect of the Imperial Religion, spreading throughout the Eastern provinces. Why did this cult function successfully in the East, while being scorned in the West? My paper will explore the reasons for the different response. I will argue that the pederastic relationship had been a long established tradition within the East but mocked as inappropriate in the West, at least in a public setting. In Greek culture there were numerous cases of such relationships in myth. The contemporaries who criticized the relationship of Hadrian and Antinous, and especially his cult, were reacting against a trend of Hellenization of Roman culture. This had been a debated issue since the Roman conquest of the East, and many times before, the champions of Roman tradition had depicted the spread of Greek ways as the triumph of moral corruption.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".