MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985768648 · doi:10.3917/dha.hs80.0291

Commenter la propagande : l'engagement virgilien dans les Commentaires serviens

2013· article· fr· W1985768648 on OpenAlex
Alban Baudou

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

VenueDialogues d histoire ancienne · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Épopée située à l’époque des lointaines origines troyennes de l’ Urbs , l’ Énéide constitue également un chant à la gloire de l’ensemble de l’histoire romaine, jusqu’au début du principat : tout autant qu’Énée, le héros en est aussi Auguste, quoiqu’il y soit mentionné trois fois seulement. Dans le commentaire servien à l’ Énéide , l’auteur affirme pourtant à maintes reprises que l’éloge du Prince est bien présent dans le poème et tente de déceler les nombreux passages où, en véritable propagandiste, Virgile aurait de manière plus ou moins apparente célébré Auguste. Dans cet article, nous montrerons que l’on peut retrouver à travers les remarques du commentateur quelques procédés rhétoriques traditionnels : comparaison illustre, comparaisons de supériorité et d’infériorité, éloge réciproque.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.224 · 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