MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Oracles et grande politique en Grèce ancienne (2e partie)

2013· book-chapter· fr· W2733386111 on OpenAlex
Pierre Bonnechère

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueÉditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArtEthnologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La première partie de cette étude a tenté de définir le contexte du décret IG II2 204 (352/351 av. J.-C.), où Athènes, dans une atmosphère tendue, dispute aux Mégariens l’orgas d’Éleusis et, pour savoir si cette terre pourrait être cultivée afin d’en retirer des revenus sacrés, consulte la pythie en des termes qui semblent trahir une réelle défiance. Dans cette seconde partie, l’analyse, souvent par l’absurde, des soi-disant enjeux politiques de la consultation (défiance envers la pythie et Delphes, protection de la pythie dans un contexte tendu, intérêts économiques), démontre qu’Athènes ne consulte que pour la question “religieuse” de la mise en culture, sans nullement se soucier des conséquences potentielles de ses relations musclées avec Mégare et ses puissants alliés. Cette consultation doit donc être lue uniquement à la lumière de préoccupations internes à l’Attique, et non comme la preuve du risque d’ingérence delphique dans les affaires internationales d’Athènes ou des cités grecques en général.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.041
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.252 · 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