MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808548138 · doi:10.1111/2041-5370.12068

IN THE SHADOW OF PRAISE: EPINICIAN LOSERS AND EPINICIAN POETICS

2018· article· en· W2808548138 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVictoryPraisePoetrySuperlativeShadow (psychology)Competition (biology)PoeticsLiteratureSimilarity (geometry)FootballAction (physics)ArtPhilosophyAestheticsLawComputer scienceLinguisticsPolitical sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Psychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While athletic competition relies on comparison (the necessary similarity of opponents, rules, conditions of victory), epinician poetry claims superlative fame and similarly singular victors. By addressing all explicit and implicit instances of losers and losing, and by paying close attention to epinician language (particularly boasts and litotes), this article deconstructs the naturalized binary of winner/loser in the poetry of Pindar and Bacchylides. Athletic competition, which is structured around similarity, problematizes the matchless fame of epinican and therefore epinician poetry, paradoxically, must work against the essential elements of the very action (i.e., sporting victory) that it purports to celebrate.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.021
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Institute of Classical StudiesSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207