Bibliographic record
Abstract
Коварство и вероломство античные писатели считали непременными качествами варваров. Но эти же приемы столетиями применялись и в римском общества. Примеров тому можно привести огромное множество. Один из эпизодов истории IV в. представляется наиболее интересным, так как показывает, насколько субъективной может быть позиция автора по отношению к очень похожим по своей сути поступкам в зависимости от того, кто их совершает, и насколько различным может быть освещение событий, если в этом проявляется личная заинтересованность писателя. The ancient writers considered that the perfidy and the insidiousness were the compulsory barbarian’s qualities. But these methods were used and in Roman society for many centuries. There are many examples of it. One episode of the Roman history of the IV century is the most interesting, because it shows, what subjective the historian’s position can be to the very like acts in dependence of theirs authors; and how different can be events’ illumination, if the writer’s personal interest is displayed in it.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.014 |
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".