MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2494540950 · doi:10.1017/ccol9780521860543.019

The runaround: a volume retrospect on ancient rhetorics

2009· book-chapter· en· W2494540950 on OpenAlexaff
John Henderson

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolume (thermodynamics)HistorySociologyPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It’s too bad that the people who know how to ruin the country are busy teaching school. (Naff bumper sticker) Performance Accustomed to public speaking as all our companions are, they have none of them told us if they trained and how, pebbles in Demosthenic cheeks above the roar of the surf, or mantras intoned at some imaginary Archias’ feet. They have indeed regaled us with precious little of the mythology surrounding the star speakers of antiquity (with the necessary exception of Penner and Vander Stichele’s Jesus, Paul, and co.). And they have suppressed detail on their own investment in rhetoric, ancient or modern (with the exception of Heath’s adversion to his own hands-on teaching of ancient rhetoric in school). But in performative terms, the rest of these scholar essays practiced house-style exegetics even while preaching the intrication of rhetoric with form-content fusion and fission – whereas Batstone dared enter into the spirit of things, casting his dramas of genre-indifferent rhetorical performativity in the outward shell of a scriptwriter’s formatting , as he cooks up a narrative leading us from staged scenes of worlds talked into existence and on to settings for world-shattering debate in and as historiography, then out towards a finale vista of entire cultures manned by selves realized as roles; and Gunderson was (acting out) toying with his reanimation of Quintilian’s project as the realization of its own training by mounting his account as a fresh realisation of Quintilian’s training - with the didactic difference that the essay runs us lap after lap through explicitation of his quasi-oration’s ticking the grand manual’s boxes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207