Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article argues that Greek assertions on the subject of diet are often misleading. As nourishment and table manners are important self-identifiers, the Greeks had a tendency to use them to differentiate themselves from the "Others," the Barbarians whose eating habits differed from their own. In reality the divide between Greeks and Barbarians was less profound than one would believe, as the Mediterranean climate and landscape imposed the same restrictions on all. The greatest divide was social, creating an unbridgeable gap between the diet of the poor and that of the rich. Étudier l'alimentation des anciens Grecs exige qu'on ne se laisse pas abuser par leur affirmations péremptoires. Comme la nourriture et les manières de table sont un important vecteur identitaire, les Grecs ont tendance à se vouloir diffèrents des « Autres », ces Barbares qui ne se nourrissent pas comme eux. La réalité montre que le fossé est moins profond qu'on le croit entre les Barbares et les Grecs, dans la mesure où le climat et le paysage méditerranéens ont tendance à imposer les mêmes contraintes à tous. Le fossé le plus profond est sans doute la fossé social, qui fait que la diète des pauvres et celle des riches citoyens font en sorte de ne pas croiser.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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; 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".