MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W202048923 · doi:10.4000/pallas.2478

Valetudinarius Seneca. Sénèque le Philosophe était-il un malade imaginaire ?

2012· article· fr· W202048923 on OpenAlex
Jean-Christophe Courtil

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

VenuePallas · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsCanadian Heritage
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sénèque a composé une œuvre philosophique dans laquelle les maux physiques qui l’accablent occupent une place considérable. Cette préoccupation constante, peu conforme à l’orthodoxie stoïcienne qui affirme l’absence de valeur morale de la souffrance physique, a été souvent mal comprise. Ainsi, certains ont émis l’hypothèse d’une œuvre qui témoignerait, en dehors de tout système de pensée stoïcien, de l’obsession hypocondriaque de son auteur. Après avoir posé la distinction fondamentale qui différencie hypocondrie, simulation et exagération, nous tenterons de démontrer que l’hypothèse de l’hypocondrie, comme celle de la simulation, peuvent toutes deux être exclues. En revanche, notre auteur a certainement utilisé sa santé fragile comme excuse pour échapper aux dangers qu’il courait. La mise en avant de ses maux a conduit à la constitution d’une image stéréotypée du philosophe aux prises avec les souffrances de la maladie, quitte à surinterprétrer les informations présentes dans son œuvre.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.005

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.253 · 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