Bibliographic record
Abstract
Общим местом в античных сочинениях были обвинения варваров в коварстве, вероломстве, непостоянстве, лицемерии и пр. Следовал этой традиции и Аммиан Марцеллин. Он считал такой стиль поведения отличительной чертой варваров. Враждебный взгляд на варваров обусловлен еще и тем, что во времена Аммиана многочисленные племена непрерывно угрожали и нападали на Римскую империю. Когда же римляне, по сути, используют те же методы в отношении соседей, это не только не возмущает автора «Деяний», а, напротив, вызывает его одобрение: неважно, каким способом уничтожены враги, главное — была принесена польза империи. Интересны терминологические различия, которые обнаруживаются в тексте «Деяний»: «дикость» внешних народов и римских воинов описывается разными словами. The accusation of the barbarians of perfidy, artfulness, inconstancy, hypocrisy etc. is a topos in the works of ancient authors. Ammianus Marcellinus followed this tradition. He considered that such style of behaviour was typical for the barbarians. The cause of the hostile view at the barbarians is explained by their uninterrupted attacks to the Roman empire in Ammianus Marcellinus’ time. But when the Romans used the same methods against the neighbors, this is not only outraged the author of “Res gestae”, but rather causes approval: in us not matter how the enemies destroyed, the main thing that was going to bring the benefits of the Empire. Terminological differences in the text of “Res gestae” are interesting: “savagery” of the barbarians and Roman warriors is described with various words.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.012 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".