Homère historien de la guerre de Troie ? Regards critiques des historiens grecs sur les poèmes homériques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article étudie le traitement réservé au « témoignage » homérique sur la guerre de Troie chez les historiens grecs de l’époque classique (Hérodote, Thucydide) et, plus succinctement, dans l’historiographie de l’époque hellénistique et romaine. Tandis qu’Hérodote, adoptant une attitude polémique, conteste l’autorité d’Homère et définit sa pratique de l’histoire par opposition avec le modèle homérique, Thucydide, affichant moins de scepticisme, s’emploie à mettre en place une méthode qui lui permette d’exploiter les poèmes homériques comme source d’informations sur l’histoire économique et politique des temps archaïques. On retrouve cette théorie du « sens caché » chez divers historiens et géographes de l’époque hellénistique et romaine qui, éduqués dans le respect de la tradition homérique, continuent à s’interroger sur l’historicité de l’Iliade et de l’Odyssée, en un débat dont le rhéteur Dion de Pruse suggère ironiquement la transformation en lieu commun de l’historiographie antique.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".