MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1877581282 · doi:10.3968/7462

A History Survey on the Rising of the Philosophy Schools in Polis Athens in the 4th Century BC

2015· article· en· W1877581282 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mingqin Wei, Jing Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic, financial, and policy analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyCivilizationState (computer science)Social scienceDemocracyInstitutionPoliticsSociologyPopulationPolitical scienceLawDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first Philosophy school appeared in Polis Athens in the 4th century BC, the education ideal it advocated appealed to numerous intellectual elites from the Mediterranean area, they together made contributions for the classical Greek Culture era with Athens as its center. The economy, culture, political system, scientific research, artistic creation had reached their peaks during this time in Athens. They played an important role in human’s civilization history. By a history survey on the rising of the philosophy schools, here summarized the main historical conditions it needed were: the development of social division of labor and slave-owning economy, the formation and development of democracy of the city-state, the growth of population, the differentiation of social class and the philosophy ideological trend; the further clarification for the social soil it needed for the nurturing and growth of the philosophy schools as the institution of higher education in Athens, helped us to expand the understanding for the social basis of the evolution of the higher education institutions.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.139 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicEconomic, financial, and policy analysisFrench-language works237,207