MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Defense of Acarnania in 389

2020· book-chapter· en· W4233985591 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David A. Blome

Bibliographic record

VenueCornell University Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeopoliticsContext (archaeology)MainlandState (computer science)Government (linguistics)Human settlementQuarter (Canadian coin)PoliticsPower (physics)HistoryPolitical sciencePolitical economyLawSociologyArchaeologyPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter assesses the Defense of Acarnania in 389. It demonstrates that not only had the Acarnanians developed a sophisticated defensive strategy that predated the Spartan invasion of 389, but their collective capabilities were rooted in the pre-<italic>koinon</italic> era of their history. As events leading up to the invasion of 389 show, the Acarnanians were fully capable of attacking coastal settlements beyond their own borders. By the first quarter of the fourth century, the ethnos of the Acarnanians constituted a well-connected, well-organized, and efficient political entity that was thoroughly adapted to the broader geopolitical context of the Greek mainland. Ultimately, the Acarnanians' successful defense of 389 was possible without the structure of a formal federal state and the direction of a central power. The Defense of 389 certainly required leadership, and there is no question that Acarnanian generals were directing the individual contingents of slingers, javelineers, peltasts, and hoplites that attacked the Spartans and their allies. These individuals must have been leading figures within individual Acarnanian communities, and they may have constituted the Acarnanian congress at Stratos. Yet there are no grounds to conclude that they were also federal magistrates constituting or supervised by a standing, central government.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCornell University Press eBooksSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207