Bibliographic record
Abstract
Altay Coşkun (C.) recently wrote another detailed and rewarding investigation of early Hellenistic history in the pages of this journal (Philia 8, 2022, 23–40). The purpose of this note is only to clarify some key dates provided by the Milesian evidence. Ever since the work of Eugène Cavaignac, it should have been well recognised that the dates of the Milesian stephane¬phoroi, as originally developed by Rehm and maintained since in publications of the Milesian evidence, are not as assured as one might think. They should be adjusted to take into account two pairs of co-occurring names in the earlier list of eponyms, as well as the course of Alexander’s campaign. Cavaignac suggested that Alexander’s stephanephoria at Miletos took place only in 333/2 BC, not in 334/3 BC (Rehm et al.). This is convincing: one may add that at the start of the Milesian year 334/3, that is to say in spring 334 BC, Alexander had certainly not yet besieged or «liberated» Miletos. The eponym at Miletos had already been appointed when Alexander arrived and thus he was named the honorary stephanephoros for the year following his takeover of the city. To argue otherwise would imply that the Milesians somehow retrojected Alexander’s stephanephoria. The starting point for any investigation of the Hellenistic period and its chronology at Miletos should therefore be Alexander’s stephanephoria in 333/2 BC. Accordingly, all of Rehm’s chronology in the third century is to be «downdated» by one year. This involves numerous small adjustments to our understanding of Milesian history, which are only indicatively sketched here for the first quarter of the third century BC, further illuminating some of the events discussed by 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".