MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906146933 · doi:10.4000/philosant.659

De l’influence des Mémorables (I 4, IV 3) sur le De Natura deorum (II) de Cicéron

2016· article· fr· W2906146933 on OpenAlexaff
Louis-André Dorion

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophie antique · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Philosophy and Thought
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les chapitres I 4 et IV 3 des Mémorables, où Socrate expose une téléologie anthropocentrique et une conception élaborée de la providence divine qui gouverne l’univers, ont exercé une profonde influence sur les stoïciens. Les Anciens ont reconnu cette influence, mais les Modernes ont tardé à la reconnaître, tantôt parce qu’ils ont considéré que ces chapitres des Mémorables étaient en réalité des interpolations d’origine stoïcienne, tantôt parce qu’ils ont attribué à Diogène d’Apollonie la téléologie exposée par Socrate. Fort heureusement, les commentateurs récents ne cherchent plus à déposséder Xénophon de la paternité de ces deux chapitres et l’on peut donc tenter de déterminer quelle fut leur postérité chez les stoïciens. L’étude qui suit s’applique à mettre en lumière les nombreux recoupements que l’on observe entre le texte des Mémorables (I 4 et IV 3) et le livre II du De natura deorum de Cicéron, où Balbus expose longuement la théologie stoïcienne. Il appert que l’influence des Mémorables sur ce texte de Cicéron est beaucoup plus considérable qu’on ne l’a reconnu jusqu’à maintenant.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophie antiqueSame topicClassical Philosophy and ThoughtFrench-language works237,207