Bibliographic record
Abstract
In June of 323 BCE, King Alexander died a young man of 32 years. Why did he die so young and so soon after winning his empire? That is a mystery which has confused many across the ages and which this paper sets out to unravel. The author focuses upon the four main plausible causes of death, namely poison, battle injuries, alcohol, and disease. The first, he swiftly dismisses due to the sensational nature of the sources that mention the poison theory and the fact that Alexander's final symptoms provide no suitable candidate for said poison. The author, thus, embarks on a thorough, step-by-step investigation of the latter three, which together, may have had a role in Alexander's demise. He examines the circumstances of each of Alexander's combat wounds, looks into the nature of his drinking, and by putting various diseases beside his final symptoms, attempts to find a suitable match for the final illness that ailed the Macedonian king. Ultimately, the discovery made is that the great conqueror was brought down by none other than the tiny anopheline mosquito, which gave him a bout of pernicious malaria. To this, the author adds the unique idea that Alexander's illness was aggravated by dehydration from his frequent alcohol drinking sessions. These, in turn, could have stemmed from a stone missile that struck the back of his neck at the Siege of Cyropolis, giving him brain damage and, as a result, causing severe emotional changes like depression, disinhibition, and hyperphagia.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
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".