MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2499364549 · doi:10.1017/ccol9780521860543.004

Codifications of rhetoric

2009· book-chapter· en· W2499364549 on OpenAlexaff
Malcolm Heath

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricPhilosophyLiteratureArtTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The classical tradition opens with an epic of war and speech. The fighting in the Iliad is interleaved with talk that decisively influences both its course and its significance to those involved. These two facets of heroic life underlie the syllabus which Peleus prescribed to Achilles’ tutor, Phoenix: “You were a child, with no knowledge yet of leveling war or of debate, where men win distinction. So he sent me out to teach you all these things, to make you a speaker of words and a doer of deeds” (9.440–43). Achilles later acknowledges that he has not learned these two lessons equally well: “I, a man without equal … in war, though there are others better skilled at debate” (18.105f.). He is right: the catastrophic consequences of his mishandling of the assembly in book 1 show why skilled speech was important. It is no surprise that Peleus thought this skill worth learning ; that he thought it could be taught foreshadows a distinctive feature of later Greco-Roman culture. The nearest we come to observing Phoenix’s teaching style is in the Embassy, where he gives Achilles specific injunctions (9.486f.); highlights significant features of the situation, contrasting them with hypothetical alternative scenarios (9.515–22); predicts the consequences of particular courses of action (9.602–605); and, above all, draws to his pupil’s notice examples on which to model, positively or negatively, his behavior. He does not rely on explicitly formulated general principles. Likewise in teaching skilled speech, he would not have needed to articulate principles in an abstract general form, let alone to systematize them. Practical skills can be taught by showing the pupil models from which, his attention guided by particularized injunctions and evaluative feedback, he can implicitly assimilate appropriate habits of performance and judgment. But the systematization of explicitly articulated principles for skilled speech was to become another characteristic feature of Greco-Roman culture. This chapter outlines the history of that process, its goals, and its achievements.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations36
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207