Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been no time in history when the formal study of rhetoric, as inaugurated in the fifth century bce , has had such a pervasive impact on the education system and the culture of a society as in the so-called Second Sophistic. Rhetoric formed not only an integral and central aspect of the curriculum at all levels of study, but also the horizon of expectation in all aspects of cultural production, from statues of star performers to the language of letters between friends. The term “Second Sophistic” was coined by the third-century ce writer Philostratus as a way of capturing his sense of how the scholars and orators of his own era looked back to the classical city for a privileged intellectual foundation. It is a useful expression in that it strongly emphasizes two important strands of the history I shall be tracing. First, the writers of the first three centuries ce show an obsessive interest in the past and in the past of the classical city in particular: they are acutely conscious of their own belated status. All the texts I will be discussing are written in the literary Attic Greek of the classical era, although the language of the streets by this period was koine , the language of the Christian Gospels. The historical examples that stud the orator’s speeches are similarly taken from events of five hundred years earlier. Social performance was calibrated by a knowledge of – and performance in – these borrowed clothes. This willful anachronism is not just a demonstration of technical flair: the imagination was formed by the concerns and figures of an era long passed. Second, the term “sophistic” marks the commitment to a form and style of learning associated with the great sophists of the classical era.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".