Patrokles ve Hazar Denizi'nin Keşfi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Caspian Sea, the world's largest inland body of water, formed ambiguous borders of a geography quite far from the areas where the Hellenes spread in ancient times. The Hellenes, who were aware of this sea thanks to the colonizations around the Black Sea and the close relations with the Persians in the early periods, came into contact with the Caspian, which was previously far from their influence areas, together with the eastern expedition of Alexander the Great. The first steps for the exploration of the sea and the surrounding areas were taken by Alexander the Great, but with his unexpected death, the project was delayed until the initiative by the king Seleucus I Nicator, one of his successors. Seleucus Nicator was the second important person to be interested in the Caspian Sea, and in the first quarter of the 3rd century BC, he commissioned Patrocles, one of his generals, to explore the Caspian Sea. Patrocles, who sailed to the sea in line with the king's instructions, prepared a report in which he recorded his observations after the expedition. The information given by Patrocles about the sea had deeply affected the ideas of historians and geographers about the Caspian and its surrounding regions for many years, including the Hellenistic and Roman periods. In this study, the exploration of Patrocles to the Caspian Sea and the effects of this exploration were evaluated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.010 |
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".