A democracia entre guerra e paz: o riso amargo de Aristófanes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artigo visa desenvolver um estudo comparativo entre duas comédias aristofânicas, Os Acarnenses e Os Cavaleiros, trazendo à luz a construção do pensamento crítico de Aristófanes acerca da democracia ateniense de seu tempo. A análise dos textos centra-se na convergência de ambos enquanto reveladores de contradições inerentes às práticas democráticas atenienses em tempos de guerra. Problematiza-se de forma complementar a dicotomia público/privado, em Os Acarnenses, e a relação entre o povo e seus governantes, em Os Cavaleiros. O diálogo entre ambos os textos é explorado não só na sátira amarga de Aristófanes, mas na solução única que deles emerge para um tempo de guerra e um sistema político em crise: a consumação da paz. Democracy, war and peace: the bitter laughter of Aristophanes Abstract This article aims to develop a comparative study between two comedies of Aristophanes, The Acharnians and The Knights, bringing to light the building of critical thinking of Aristophanes concerning Athenian democracy of his time. The analysis of the text focuses on the convergence of both as revealing contradictions in Athenian democratic practices in times of war. This article also examines the dichotomy public / private in The Acharnians and the relationship between the people and their rulers, in The Knights. The dialogue between the two texts is explored not only in the bitter satire of Aristophanes, but in the only solution that appears in both texts regarding a time of war and a political system in crisis: the consummation of peace. Keywords: Aristophanes; comedy; democracy; Acharnians, Knights.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".