Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article deals with three coins. The first is the gold daric, a "monument" of Darius' royal self-presentation (if not quite an imperial currency). The second is the Athenian tetradrachm (strictly speaking the currency of someone else's empire) and its impact, perhaps in counterfeit form, at the first cataract of the Nile and in a remote oasis in the Western Desert. The third is a Cilician issue associated with Tiribazus that deserves more attention than it has generally received. All three cases raise questions about the relationship between designer, issuer, and individual coin that are directly relevant to the way coinage worked in Achaemenid imperial space and to any attempt to validate ps.-Aristotle's location of coinage entirely within the royal oikonomia . Abstract: Cet article traite de trois monnaies. La première est la darique d'or, un « monument » de l'autoprésentation royale de Darius (si elle n'est pas tout à fait une monnaie impériale). La deuxième est la tétradrachme athénienne (au sens strict, la monnaie d'un autre empire) et sa présence, possiblement sous forme contrefaite, jusqu'à la première cataracte du Nil et a une oasis dans le désert occidental. La troisième est une production cilicienne associée à Tiribaze qui mérite davantage d'attention qu'elle n'en a généralement reçu. Ces trois cas soulèvent tous des questions sur la relation entre créateur, producteur, et pièce individuelle, questions qui sont directement liées à la façon dont la monnaie fonctionnait dans l'espace impéerial achéménide. Elles sont ègalement pertinentes si l'on souhaite confirmer les dires du pseudo-Aristote, selon qui la monnaie était localisée entièrement à l'intérieur de l' oikonomia royale.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".