Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette brève contribution a pour but de revenir sur une question soulevée par Miguel Herrero de Jáuregui (« Christian Assimilation of “Pagan” Elements : An Apologetic Concept ? », New Perspectives on Late Antiquity, edited by David Hernández de la Fuente, Cambridge, 2011, p. 380-392), à propos de la façon dont les historiens de l’Antiquité tardive envisagent les contacts ou échanges entre Juifs, chrétiens et païens et, plus particulièrement, les phénomènes d’acculturation ou d’appropriation culturelle. Cette question est abordée à la lumière de la figure d’Orphée, dont Miguel Herrero se sert pour illustrer sa thèse dans le domaine de l’iconographie religieuse, alors qu’il recourt à d’autres thèmes ou motifs pour vérifier son hypothèse dans la sphère des rites et de la poésie. La question soulevée est de savoir si l’opinio communis selon laquelle certains éléments de la culture païenne ont été « assimilés » à et par la culture chrétienne (et peut-être juive avant elle) est une représentation biaisée qui se fonde sur une construction apologétique plus ou moins inconsciente ou s’il s’agit d’une réalité culturelle historiquement attestée.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".