MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315168272 · doi:10.1017/s0068673500000729

How Vergil expanded the Underworld in<i>Aeneid</i>6

2001· article· en· W2315168272 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond J. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTragedy (event)PraiseLiteratureIdentity (music)ArtPhilosophyHistoryClassicsAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a recent article published in theCQI argued the likelihood that in comparable underworld scenes Vergil modelled Charon's challenge to Aeneas inAeneid6.388–97 on Aeacus' challenge to Heracles in a surviving fragment of the tragedyPirithouscomposed by either Euripides or Critias, and I took the episode to be a reinforcement or a possible modification of E. Norden's suggestion that Aeneas' descent into the Underworld is modelled on acatabasisof Heracles. In the play Aeacus sees a figure approaching him and demands to know of the stranger both his identity and his business in coming. Heracles responds by giving his name and explaining that he has come hither at Eurystheus' command to fetch Cerberus alive from Hades and bring him to Mycenae's gates. Heracles must then have overcome Aeacus. for we next find Theseus and Heracles conversing in the Underworld about Pirithous. Earlier in the play Pirithous had lamented that he still languishes in Hades for having attempted, with Theseus as his accomplice, to carry off from the world below the goddess Persephone to be his bride. In the usual version both heroes are caught and punished in the world below and only Theseus is rescued by Heracles. In this play, however, Heracles now heaps praise upon Theseus for his loyalty in electing to stay with his friend Pirithous in Hades. Heracles then rescues both heroes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0130.016
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.004

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations15
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Cambridge Philological SocietySame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207