MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016310631 · doi:10.1353/tj.2003.0020

Women and Oaths in Euripides

2003· article· en· W2016310631 on OpenAlexaff
Judith Fletcher

Bibliographic record

VenueTheatre Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Deviance, and Social Control
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolidarityHegemonyNormativePower (physics)Action (physics)LiteratureArtPhilosophyPhysicsPolitical scienceLawEpistemologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The plots of three Euripidean tragedies, the Medea, the Hippolytus, and the Iphigenia at Aulis, are driven by oaths sworn by men to women. Women gain control not only of men's language and action, a distortion of the normative social hegemony, but also of the script itself. In all three plays women's power is substantiated by additional oaths of solidarity sworn by female choruses. The catastrophes of the Medea and the Hippolytus are direct consequences of women's control of language, while the twinned oaths of Pylades and Iphigenia dilute this control and contribute to the salutary outcome of the Iphigenia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.017
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations28
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheatre JournalSame topicCrime, Deviance, and Social ControlFrench-language works237,207