The Temple of Apollo on the acropolis of Panticapaeum. New materials to recreate the appearance and history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
13 years ago, my article was published, devoted to the hypothesis about the temple of Apollo on the Upper Plateau of the First Chair of Mount Mithridates – on the Panticapaean acropolis. The paper presented a number of architectural details of the Ionic order, found at that time during the excavations of the Bosporus expedition of the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, which could be considered details of the columns and entablature of this temple. In 2009, after a break, the research at the New Upper Mithridates (NUM) excavation dig was resumed and by 2024, i. e. during the last 15 years, here, in the immediate vicinity of the supposed location of the temple of Apollo, were found 13 more fragments of order details, which, judging by their characteristics, can be attributed to the order system of the temple of Apollo. These architectural finds, as well as the general context of the historical situation, reconstructed on the basis of a detailed analysis of the entire volume of materials obtained from the cultural layers of the late 6th – third quarter of the 5th centuries BC, i. e. in the Fourth and Fifth construction periods of the central part of Panticapaeum, again make relevant the question of localisation of the Temple of Apollo on the Upper Plateau of the First Chair of Mithridates Hill, as well as the clarification of its appearance and construction 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".