MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7127100657 · doi:10.36991/philia.202510

An Eventful Tenure: Aristomenes, Hierapolos of Telos, and Aglokritos, Rhodian Priest of Halios in 223/2 BC

2025· article· en· W7127100657 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stella Skaltsa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Philia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEponymQuarter (Canadian coin)HonourDecreePeriod (music)HonorificEmbezzlement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a contextual analysis of a fragmentary honorific decree from Telos—a Rhodian deme by the last quarter of the 3rd c. BC—for Aristomenes, the local hiera­polos (IG XII.3, 30). It is ascertained that the entirety of the preserved decree was issued in honour of Aristomenes’ outstanding conduct of the office. His tenure as hierapolos was quite challenging, since he faced unforeseen expenses (ll. 7–11) and embezzlement of sacred funds (ll. 12–17) in the aftermath of an earthquake that hit the island. Since Aristomenes’ office is dated after the eponym of the Rhodian State, Aglokritos, this inscription proves to be of paramount importance for Rhodian chronology. The identification of the earthquake has been an unresolved issue in scholarship, as two major, well-recorded earthquakes hit Rhodes and Karia within the span of a quarter of a century—in 223/2 BC and in 199/8 BC respectively. After a close analysis of the text and considering that the eponym of the earthquake of 199/8 BC was Theuphanes, this paper identifies the earthquake in question with the first earthquake (i.e. 223/2 BC). In doing so, Aglokritos, the priest of Halios, can now be identified with the eponym of the earthquake of 223/2 BC. Consequently, his priesthood should be moved from Period IIb (Finkielzstejn, 216 BC) or Period IIc (Castelli, 206 BC) to Period IIa in the amphoric sequence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhiliaSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207