MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946630489

The Noble Singer: Consolidating Incantations in Plato's Phaedo

2017· article· en· W2946630489 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudent Research Proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Philosophy and Thought
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncantationSOCRATESContext (archaeology)MythologyPhilosophyLiteratureEpistemologyAfterlifeSingingAestheticsTheologyHistoryArtArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twice in Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates suggests that the singing of incantations may reduce fear towards the afterlife; first, when Simmias admits to the persistent fear of death; and second, when Socrates concludes his eschatological myth. In both instances, it is unclear what exactly he is telling them to do; indeed, the instances seem to disagree. In this paper, I will show that the two descriptions of incantations do not ostensibly agree and how. Then, I will explore the nuances of each reference and clarify their context by providing passages from other parts of the dialogue and by referring to Aristotle's Ethics. I aim to consolidate both references, if possible, and to clarify who can sing incantations and how it affects the listener. Discipline: Philosophy Faculty Mentor: Dr. Edvard Lorkovic

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.351
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.124 · 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