La « corruption » de la pythie chez Hérodote dans l'affaire de Démarate (VI, 60-84). Du discours politique faux au discours historique vrai
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his “Story of Demaratus”, Herodotus presents the Pythia as having been corrupted by king Cleomenes of Sparta in order to expose his colleague Demaratus as a bastard and therefore unable to rule. The episode has often been regarded as realistic, if not altogether factual. However, a thorough study of the passage shows that the corruption of the Pythia is only one link in a great narrative chain of corruption in which the protagonists are all ultimately punished. Moreover, Herodotus’ account proves that, despite being corrupted, the Pythia nonetheless tells the truth even if no one initially recognizes it as such. In the final analysis, then, the mendacious political speech of Cleomenes proves to be true in the historical account of Herodotus as it remains impossible to separate the corruption of the Pythia from the larger narrative; impossible too to indict Delphi with dishonesty.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".