MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1584781986

Socrates in the Clouds: Excess and Impiety

2008· dissertation· en· W1584781986 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Peter Cruickshank

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2008
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLeadership, Courage, and Heroism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMcMaster University
KeywordsSOCRATESPhilosophyEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper seeks to analyse the portrayal of Socrates in the Clouds in detail, with emphasis on the particularly unflattering aspects of the depiction, aspects which may have soured the public's perception of Socrates, or else at least may vocalize an already-soured perception of him. The establishment of the exact nature of this depiction is the primary objective of this paper then. But an interesting theme will emerge: the negative qualities in the depiction of Socrates will be shown to have a unity, rather than being random jabs. They constitute a general stereotype of the intellectual of the time, and the underlying criticism behind all of the negative qualities is that the intellectual is perceived to reject the middling egalitarian values so essential to his state. A large part of this rejection will be his religious heterodoxy, and the important implications that has for his character. The study of the nature of the portrayal of Socrates in the Clouds is a worthwhile topic by itself, but this detailed analysis of the depiction will also provide a useful point of reference for further studies of Aristophanes' comedy, Socrates' trial, and fifth and fourth century Athenian attitudes towards intellectuals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.016
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicLeadership, Courage, and Heroism StudiesFrench-language works237,207