Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the beginning of the Aeneid Virgil's hero grounds the Trojans’ mission to found a new city and world empire in the memory of their catastrophic sufferings. As Aeneas enters Dido's new temple raised in honor of Juno, he sees the high point of the goddess's glory depicted in the defeat and humiliation of Hector (I:483–4). More than a little ironically, Aeneas fails to notice the glory but, in the great-heartedness Virgil's Roman audience is meant to admire, he only sees the sufferings of his own people: ‘who knows not the sufferings of the Trojans’, he wonders in astonishment that the Carthaginians should be so familiar with his nation's story (I:459–60).1 Later, addressing Dido and her rapt court, he goes on to recount in great detail the brutal, nightmare destruction of his family and friends in the fiery, apocalyptic immolation of their city (II:1–804). The redemptive force of the Aeneid is incomprehensible without this opening holocaust. As Ernest Renan suggests in his remarkable account of nation-formation, national cultures draw enormous strength and definition from the memory of some original disaster: ‘suffering in common unifies more than joy does’, he argues, and where ‘national memories are concerned, griefs are of more value than triumphs, for they impose duties, and require a common effort’.2 In the story of twentieth-century Britain's national identity, the defining catastrophe or holocaust was not the fall of Troy or the event that now so powerfully dominates contemporary culture in the West, the mass murder of over 6 million Jews, social democrats, communists, and others in Nazi Germany, but a different, albeit related, nightmare—the slaughter of a whole generation of young men on the Western Front in the First World War. In this holocaust, Britain alone suffered over 2.3 million dead and wounded; that is, 5% of its total population of 46 million people were direct casualties.3
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".