MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317254636 · doi:10.1525/rh.2008.26.4.392

L'interprétation de l'<i>ēthos</i> aristotélicien par al-Fārābī

2008· article· fr· W2317254636 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

VenueRhetorica · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval and Classical Philosophy
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nautical Research Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé: Il s'agit ici d'analyser la façon dont al-Fārābī (870–950) a interprété l'ēthos aristotélicien dans les Didascalia in Rethoricam Aristotelis ex glosa Alpharabii, introduction de son Grand Commentaire à la Rhétorique d'Aristote. Alors qu'Aristote organise ses moyens de persuasion en fonction du critère de technicité (pisteis entechnoi vs pisteis atechnoi), al-Fārābī choisit de les classer selon un critère formel puisqu'il distingue les moyens de persuasion syllogistiques des moyens de persuasion non syllogistiques. Pour être cernée au plus près, l'interprétation farabienne de l'ēthos aristotélicien nécessite la prise en compte des conditions dans lesquelles la transmission de la Rhétorique d'Aristote s'est opérée dans le monde oriental, ainsi que le contexte culturel, politico-religieux et philosophique propre à la composition des Didascalia.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.210 · 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