MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033711523 · doi:10.1353/mou.2010.0006

Crime and Criminals in Plato’s Laws

2009· article· fr· W2033711523 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Virginia Hunter

Bibliographic record

VenueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of Canada · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFree Will and Agency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExaggerationOffensiveLawPunishment (psychology)Code (set theory)State (computer science)Criminal codeSociologyPolitical scienceCriminal lawCriminologyPsychologyComputer scienceMathematicsSocial psychologyOperations researchAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le livre 9 des Lois de Platon représente l’embryon d’un code criminel inséré dans un code plus général lequel soulève des questions d’ordre social, économique, domestique et religieuse. Le livre débute par la définition « des délits les plus graves » entraînant des poursuites judiciaires (en fait, les crimes). Selon cette définition, ils sont difficiles même impossibles à réparer, offensant pour les dieux et dommageables pour la communauté. Puis, dans un ordre logique et systématique, Platon énumère une série de crimes, le tribunal habilité à juger chacun d’entre eux et les peines infligées aux coupables—généralement punis au nom de la communauté, ici la polis (l’État). Au regard de la définition et du châtiment, les délits les plus graves aux yeux de Platon correspondent à la définition ancienne du crime. Ce ne serait donc pas exagérer que d’avancer que, avec ce code, Platon a formulé la première classification systématique des crimes dans la pensée judiciaire et philosophique grecque. Enfin, en incluant plusieurs procès parmi les délits les plus graves, Platon nous aide à reconceptualiser la distinction entre droit privé et public à Athènes.

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 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)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of CanadaSame topicFree Will and AgencyFrench-language works237,207