MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080911246 · doi:10.1163/156852511x504971

Thebaid 2.239, 2.729 and the Problem of Aracynthus

2011· article· en· W2080911246 on OpenAlex

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

VenueMnemosyne · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicOrganic Chemistry Synthesis Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllusionVictoryContext (archaeology)LiteratureSection (typography)PoetryJealousyHistoryArtAncient historyPhilosophyLawPoliticsArchaeologyPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The first section of this paper examines an allusion to Propertius 3.15 at 2.239 of Statius’ Thebaid. Here Statius refers to a certain Mount Aracynthus in the context of the double marriage of Argia and Deipyle to Polynices and Tydeus. Invoked in Latin poetry as we have it a scant three times, Statius’ Aracynthus recalls Propertius 3.15.42, where the mountain is the site of Amphion’s paean celebrating the victory over Dirce, whose jealous pursuit of Antiope wrought her own destruction. Invoked in the midst of the wedding of Polynices, whose own jealousy over Eteocles will bring about his downfall, Aracynthus casts a pall over the otherwise idyllic description of the two brides and further hints at the doomed nature of their union to the two exiles, Polynices and Tydeus.The second section of this paper examines an implied reference to another Aracynthus at 2.729. This second Aracynthus, however, is Aetolian and not the Boeotian mountain of Propertius. Statius’ two Aracynthi draw us in to an obscure debate, ancient and modern, concerning the location(s) of this (or these) mountain(s) and may suggest something about his engagement with his literary models.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.196 · 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