Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beginning with the position that Aeschylus expresses in Agamemnon a conflict between the character of Agamemnon and his wife Clytaemestra, it is discussed what form that conflict takes, how it is depicted, and how it is understood by its intended audience. Next the function of the idea of character, and of individual characters, in that conflict and in the presentation of that conflict is examined. Finally the definitions formulated in these sections are used to examine the interdependence of the two ideas of conflict and character in the cases of the two main characters in that conflict, Agamemnon and Clytaemestra. It is found that the conflict is schematised as a cyclical sequence of acts of vengeance, rather than an intellectually articulated opposition of viewpoints as might be expected. It is, however, treated as such an opposition for dramatic convenience, and this is achieved by a two-party system of allegiances in which Agamemnon and Clytaemestra are involved. It is then found that characters maintain individualised identities as flesh-and-blood personae while participating in this conflict, by the coincidence ('overdetermination') of the two sets of motivations implied by this dichotomy. It is then found that the intellectual functions and emotive realism of Clytaemestra and Agamemnon respectively justify and condemn the character Clytaemestra within the context of the conflict, and respectively condemn and justify Agamemnon. It is concluded that the style of the play is intentionally ambiguous and that events in the play serve multiple functions so as to create an impressionistic structure through which the audience perceives the above aspects of the play.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".