Ordre et progression des discours au chapitre IV du Banquet de Xénophon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le chapitre IV du Banquet compte soixante-quatre paragraphes et c’est le plus long chapitre de ce dialogue de Xénophon. Les convives du Banquet (Callias, Nicératos, Critobule, Charmide, Antisthène, Hermogène, Socrate) y exposent à tour de rôle ce qui fait l’objet de leur fierté. Cette étude vise à démontrer que la succession des discours n’est pas arbitraire et qu’elle obéit à une « logique » implicite. Le principe qui sous-tend l’ordre des discours et qui préside à leur succession est celui de la proximité doctrinale avec Socrate. Les premiers discours sont prononcés par des personnages (Callias, Nicératos) qui n’appartiennent pas à l’entourage de Socrate et qui n’exposent pas non plus des positions socratiques, alors que les discours suivants, qui sont tenus par des compagnons de Socrate (Critobule, Charmide, Antisthène, Hermogène), se succèdent les uns aux autres comme s’ils se rapprochaient de plus en plus des positions défendues par Socrate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
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".