Ольвийская тирания, «скифский протекторат» и некоторые вопросы социально-политической и экономической истории Ольвийского полиса позднеархаического и раннеклассического времени
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the article, certain questions devoted to historic development of Olbio Polis in Late Archaic and Early Classic periods are under review. The main problems in study of the most important in State History chronological period are covered. Its investigation is dramatized by two current opposite handlings in study of Olbio History. There are points of principle in Greek-Barbarian relationship in basis. The fundamental viewpoints in reference to some historic, social, political, economic reconstruction, ethnic and demographic models, territorial and structural state genesis are communicated and analyzed. On carry out of earlier elaborations and taking into account the modern ones, the author concludes about the necessity of further handling of study the Olbio History not as elementary trade and economic trans agent for rules of Scythia with prevail barbarian population, but as a classic Ancient Greek Polis with its traditional for Ancient Greeks social way of life, economic, cultural and social spheres. Special attention is given to the period of tyrannical governance in the second half of 5th century BC. In the basis of the number of findings, basing on archaeology data, the author concludes the most probable time for establishment the tyrannical Polis rule - the end of 2nd* quarter - the middle of 5th century BC. The brief emission of silver Eminac's stater is associated with the rule of tyranny in Olbio. Also the reality of existing as called "Scythian protectorate*' in Polis is disputed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".