Tradition et critique : lecture jumelée de Platon et Aristote chez Olympiodore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quel type d’autorité revêtent Platon et Aristote à la fin de l’Antiquité, en particulier aux yeux d’Olympiodore d’Alexandrie ? Selon une thèse dominante de nos jours, le rapport aux deux classiques grecs, chez tous les néoplatoniciens, se résume à deux présupposés : l’harmonie entre les deux penseurs et la supériorité, plus précisément l’infaillibilité de Platon. La présente étude se propose, dans un premier temps, d’éclairer la notion d’harmonie à la lumière du contexte pédagogique des commentaires tardifs et du principe de vérité comme unité, et dans un deuxième temps, de montrer que la notion d’infaillibilité ne s’applique guère à Olympiodore en raison de la conception socratique que celui-ci se fait de sa propre pratique exégétique et de certains aspects de sa pratique même.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".