Of a Love beyond Repair: Gender, Eros and Ethos in Ovid’s Narcissus (Met. 3.339-510)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ovid’s tale of Narcissus shares associations of erotic strangeness with the accounts of Iphis, Byblis, and Salmacis. Iphis and Byblis are distraught at breaching society’s norms with their lesbian and incestuous passions, respectively, while Salmacis’ amphibious sexual perseverance brings about an intriguing natural marvel. As for Narcissus, who loves a boy like himself who turns out to be himself, his contribution to strangeness lies, outwardly, not so much in the visualized object of his romantic obsession (though this would be present in spades) as in the mistaken but opportune milieu of its pursuit. And here the poet–narrator turns pointedly away from commenting upon the obvious homoerotic imprint of Narcissus’s posture. Why? Perhaps because Ovid is after bigger game: love itself. In crafting a convincing and daring de novo love affair between boy contemporaries (with a side look at Echo), he seeks to play experimentally with how the universal standard of successful heterosexual romance, mutual love, will work in a homosexual setting; and for this he needs to have his lovers, boy and boy-image, escape the notoriously nonmutual contamination of classical pederasty.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".