MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974216877 · doi:10.1093/notesj/gjt184

The Source for Hume's Anecdote about Sophocles in his Letter to Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot

2013· article· en· W1974216877 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNotes and Queries · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnecdoteVerdictPhilosophyJuryOrder (exchange)LiteratureTragedy (event)ClichéArtLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HUME, in a letter to Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, relates the following about Sophocles: We are told that Sophocles in his old Age was supposed to have lost his Senses; and his Family for that Reason apply’d for a Commission of Lunacy against him. But the Poet, as his only Answer, read some Scenes of his Tragedy of Œdipus Colonnus which he was at that time composing. And he was unanimously acquitted by the Judges.1 J. Y. T. Greig, the editor of The Letters of David Hume, does not tell us from where Hume is getting this anecdote, but an account of it can be found in Cicero’s De Senectute: Sophocles composed tragedies to extreme old age; and when, because of his absorption in literary work, he was thought to be neglecting his business affairs, his sons haled him into court in order to secure a verdict removing him from the control of his property on the ground of imbecility. … Thereupon, it is said, the old man read to the jury his play, Oedipus at Colonus, which he had just written and was revising, and inquired: ‘Does that poem seem to you to be the work of an imbecile?’ When he had finished he was acquitted by the verdict of the jury.2

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.261
Teacher spread0.247 · 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