MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978016887 · doi:10.1163/156852507x235191

Polos euergetês: Rhetoric and Poetry in the Gorgias

2008· article· en· W1978016887 on OpenAlexaff
Gwenette Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueMnemosyne · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Philosophy and Thought
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricConversationArgument (complex analysis)PoetryPhraseLiteratureVocabularyFlatteryPhilosophyPoint (geometry)Reading (process)LinguisticsArtMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Halfway through his conversation with Sokrates in the Gorgias, Polos claims that it would be easy to refute the philosopher's argument that it is better to act with justice than without it. Asking his interlocutor to proceed with the refutation, Sokrates urges him (470c): 'do not tire of doing favours (ευεργετων) for a friend'. In its metre and sense, this phrase is reminiscent of Pindaric lyric, and its vocabulary recalls that of Olympian 2.93-4 in particular; it will be argued here that a 'Pindaric' reading of Sokrates' injunction to Polos is appropriate. Sokrates' adoption of the language of a laudator of tyrants at this point in the conversation is relevant to the presentation in the Gorgias of related themes (flattery, tyranny, and euergesia) and to Sokrates' eironic posture in the dialogue; it also suits Platonic treatments of Pindar and poetry in general.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.022
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 venueMnemosyneSame topicClassical Philosophy and ThoughtFrench-language works237,207