Sennacherib and the War of 1812 disputed victory in the Assyrian campaign of 701 BCE in light of military history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"This volume investigates the question of how both Assyria and Judah could remember the war of 701 BCE as their respective victory. Whilst surveying available evidences for historical reconstructions, Paul S. Evans compares the Sennacherib's Third Campaign with the War of 1812 between Canada and the USA as an example of disputed victory from military history. Considering military history, Evans examines Assyrian and biblical texts to evaluate the conflict and argues that rather than being intentionally deceptive in their accounts of the events, both sides had reasons to perceive the war as a victory. Evans also illustrates how the fluctuating support for wartime leaders in 1812 is analogous to positive and negative oracles regarding Jerusalem's leadership during the war years. With differing opinions regarding the success of the Sennacherib's Third Campaign, Evans presents an interesting discussion of the events and demonstrates how our understanding of the war between Assyria and Judah can be illuminated by military history."
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".