Bibliographic record
Abstract
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-koinon 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".