MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389634662 · doi:10.1353/phx.2022.a914294

The ΣYN Coinage: Agesilaus versus Lysander

2022· article· fr· W4389634662 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sélènè Psoma

Bibliographic record

VenuePhoenix · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHoardIconographyHumanitiesLegendArtPhilosophyHistoryAncient historyArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This paper reviews previous attributions of the coinage, supports dates between 395 and 394 for it, and relates it to Agesilaus ii and the preparation of the fleet by the cities-allies of the Spartans, to which refers the legend ΣYN ( synteleia ). Iconography—Heracles drakontopnigon —supports the relation to Agesilaus, the Heraclid par excellence, while the Hecatomnus hoard reveals that all coinages on the Chian standard of the hoard are associated with the Spartan-Persian War (399–386 b.c.e.). Abstract: Cet article passe en revue les attributions précédentes de la monnaie ΣYN, argumente en faveur de dates entre 395 et 394 pour celle-ci, et relie cette monnaie à Agésilas ii et à la préparation d'une flotte par les cités alliées des Spartiates, à laquelle la légende ΣYN ( synteleia ) fait référence. L'iconographie — Héraclès drakontopnigon — soutient la relation avec Agésilas, l'Héraclide par excellence, tandis que le trésor d'Hécatomne révèle que toutes les monnaies appartenant au standard de Chios dans ce trésor sont associées à la guerre spartiato-perse (399-386 a. C.).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhoenixSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207