Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why tragic and comic poets, with their divergent approaches to drama, converge in their ambivalence to democratic oratory, is a fascinating question, since on the face of it, dramatists and orators have much in common. Like orators, dramatists were citizens of Athens authorized by the democracy and occupied a prestigious place within the city’s speech regime. Dramatists, like orators, competed for victory before mass audiences, though five judges randomly selected from a pool of ten determined victory in dramatic contests, not a majority of spectators. Their audiences, though not identical, overlapped; Demosthenes calls jurors as witnesses to events that transpired in the theater (21.18, 226). As Simon Goldhill writes, “to be in an audience is not just a thread in the city’s social fabric, it is a fundamental political act.” Most scholars believe that performances of tragedies and comedies at festivals in honor of Dionysus, god of wine and life-giving liquids, were in some sense political. How political were they? This essay discusses the anatomy of fifth-century theater’s negative engagements with democratic oratory and orators and suggests that its symbolic violence towards democratic speech regimes aroused a potentially anti-democratic nostalgia for a fictionalized time of unitary socioeconomic, political, and moral orders, the time of the fathers expressed in the slogans “ancestral constitution” and “ancestral laws.”
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".