Bibliographic record
Abstract
F ollowing a trial at Session I of the Council of Chalcedon (451), imperialo cials declared Dioscorus, the archbishop of Alexandria, deposed from the episcopacy, pending the approval of Marcian, emperor of the eastern Roman Empire (r.450-457).cially, this as his punishment for his role in the unjust depositions of Flavian, deceased archbishop of Constantinople, and Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, at the Second Council of Ephesus (i.e., Ephesus II) (449), hich ope Leo called the Robber Council. 1 Dioscorus had chaired it, and five other bishops ho played ey roles there ere also provisionally deposed on the same grounds.2 Acclamations at the end of Session II indicate, ho ever, that Dioscorus and the five ere understood to be only suspended from the council, not deposed.3 It later emerged that Marcian had given only tentative approval for the depositions pending the conciliar bishops approval.4 So, at Session III, the council held an exclusively ecclesiastical trial for Dioscorus under the leadership of the Roman legates no imperial o cials ere present they decided to depose him for various disciplinary o enses.5 At Session I , they decided to restore 1 Leo asserted this epithet in a letter to Empress ulcheria (20 July 451).Cf.Document 11 in Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, ed. and trans.,The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 3 vols., Translated Texts for istorians 45 (Liverpool: Liverpool niversity ress, 2005), 1:105-7.Subse uent references to these volumes ill be cited in the abbreviated form rice-Gaddis, follo ed by volume and page numbers and then by session and paragraph numbers.here session and paragraph numbers are absent, the references are to the commentary of Price and Gaddis, not to primary documents.2 rice-Gaddis 1:364, Session I.1068.3Cf. rice-Gaddis 2:27-28, Session II.30, 34, 41, 44.This ill be argued more fully belo .4 rice-Gaddis 2:66-67, Session III.78. 5 Cf.rice-Gaddis 2:38-116.42 v Shaun Retallic to the council the other five ho had been deposed they had renounced Ephesus II at Session I, and later signed Leo s Tome.6 This is a basic outline of the events surrounding Dioscorus deposition at Chalcedon, a council summoned by Marcian to resolve a series of problems stemming from Ephesus II.7 Most importantly, the council bishops ere mandated to confirm the true and venerable orthodox faith.8 The decision to call the council, moreover, as largely o ing to ope Leo s re uest, and among the decisions made prior to and at the Council of Chalcedon were a series of doctrinal and disciplinary matters upon which Leo had insisted.is doctrinal demands pertained to the approval of his Tome, hich supported dyophysitism, as ell as condemnations of Eutyches monophysitism and estorianism.f Leo s many disciplinary demands, one of the most important as the deposition of Dioscorus for his o enses at Ephesus II as president, but only if he did not repent similarly, he urged the reconciliation of repentant bishops ho had lapsed at Ephesus II. 9 Many of 8 Cf.First Letter of Marcian to the Council (September 451) in rice-Gaddis 1:107 (cf.2:2). 9In a letter Leo stated that if Dioscorus or anyone else recanted, they should not be deposed from the episcopacy (Ep.95.4,cited in Wessel, Leo the Great, 175).Similarly, in a letter to the Council of Chalcedon, Leo mandated, if, as e desire, all abandon error, no one need lose his ran ( Letter of ope Leo to the Council from June 26, 451 in rice-Gaddis
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".