Le procès et l’exécution de Socrate chez trois auteurs de l’époque impériale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the trial of Socrates happened in the IVth century BC, the impression of the injustice that the great philosopher had suffered remained alive during the early centuries of our era. In this article, we examine how the trial and execution of Socrates through the eyes of three authors of the imperial era, specifically Plutarch, Dion Chrysostome and Lucien. Each author reacts to Socrates’ trial and execution according to his own style and temperament. Plutarch testifies to the hatred of the Athenians against Anytos, Meletos and Lycon and their tragic end, while Dion informs us of the poor reputation that the Athenians retain because of the condemnation of Socrates since then and until the imperial era. Finally, Lucien exploits the rich material provided by the end of the great philosopher in many ways. However, all three agree that it was an unjust death and a shameful condemnation, as well as an event that casts a shadow over the ideal image that we have of Athenian democracy in the classical era.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".