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 OpenAlexaff
Jason McClure

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.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.020
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMnemosyneSame topicOrganic Chemistry Synthesis MethodsFrench-language works237,207