La réception de Cassius Dion chez Corneille : le débat Agrippa-Mécène (Histoire romaine, livre 52) et le débat Cinna-Maxime (Cinna, ii, 1)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente les liens entre le texte de Cassius Dion (Histoire romaine, début du iiie siècle) et celui de Corneille (Cinna, 1642). Après avoir montré que le texte historique du livre 52 et le débat entre Agrippa et Mécène à propos de l’avenir politique d’Octave servent de sous-texte au texte dramatique et au dialogue entre Cinna et Maxime, nous mettons en avant le fait que Corneille se réapproprie le texte dans une perspective différente, au point d’avoir peut-être influencé les lectures ultérieures de Dion. Cette réappropriation n’a été rendue possible que par la double nature rhétorique et historique, à la frontière de deux genres, de l’historiographie antique, particulièrement visible dans les prosopopées.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".