MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Herodotus and Oral History Reconsidered

2001· book-chapter· en· W4388392498 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoriographyInterpreterInterpretation (philosophy)HistoryQuarter (Canadian coin)LiteratureClassicsArtPhilosophyArchaeologyLinguisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract THE first version of ‘Herodotus and Oral History’ was written in 1977, a quarter of a century ago, for the great series of seminars which I ran with Arnaldo Momigliano while he was a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. At the time I was composing Early Greece (1980), and seeking to justify the use I was to make of Herodotus, not merely as a source, but also more importantly as a more or less sympathetic interpreter of archaic Greece. The problem was not only the extent to which he was an accurate recorder of the events which occurred, and how this accuracy was achieved, but also whether his interpretation of the structure of the archaic world view could be accepted. Did he understand the events he described, or was his description only partial and distorted? These were genuine and traditional historical questions, only slightly touched by the new historiography.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207