LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON?: SELECTED EXAMPLES OF INTERTEXTUALITY IN SENECA THE YOUNGER AND SENECA THE ELDER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his Epistulae Morales and tragedies, Seneca the Younger is influenced by the rhetorical works of his father. That Seneca should be a careful and curious reader of his father's work is not surprising; what may be surprising is that in his use of imitatio he recalls his father's directives, while also developing them according to his philosophical and literary interests. Seneca the Younger imitates passages from his father's work that are concerned with the issue of imitatio, and highlights for the reader both his emulation of his father's work and his original application of imitatio in his own writings. Dans ses Épîtres morales et ses tragédies, Sénèque a subi l'influence des œuvres rhétoriques de son père. S'il n'est pas surprenant que Sénèque fut un lecteur attentif des œuvres de son père, il peut sembler étonnant qu'il rappelle les directives de ce dernier au sujet de l'imitatio, tout en utilisant ce procédé pour servir ses propres intérêts philosophiques et littéraires. Sénèque imite des passages des œuvres de son père qui ont rapport avec le sujet de l'imitatio et fait ressortir, pour le bénéfice de son lecteur, à la fois son émulation envers l'œuvre de son père et l'originalité de son usage de l'imitatio dans ses propres écrits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".