MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012479277 · doi:10.2307/j.ctv13nb6p9.7

Narrative manipulation of Medea and Metis in Hesiod’s Theogony

2019· book-chapter· en· W3012479277 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBarkhuis eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and language evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUniversity of Oxford
KeywordsHesiodMetisNarrativeLiteratureArtHistoryPoetryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Narrative manipulation of Medea and Metis in Hesiod's TheogonyMedea might reasonably be called one of the most famous female figures of Greek mythology, yet her representation wavers between that of innocent girl, such as in in the Apollonian tradition, and cold infanticide, such as in the Euripidean tradition.Her earliest textual and iconographic representations already anticipate this complexity.While Medea is apparently represented as an innocent girl in the earliest Argonautic account, that of Hesiod's Theogony, 1 her earliest 'Corinthian' representations rather seem to depict an authoritative queen with magical, witch-like powers: in Eumelus' Corinthiaca, probably composed at some time between the eigth and the middle of the sixth century BC, Jason rules only 'through her', 2 and she (unsuccessfully) attempts to immortalize her children. 3In sixthcentury iconography, she rejuvenates a ram and kills Pelias.Her potential presence in eighthcentury BC Corinthian cult further complicates matters.Graf and Johnston argue for the precedence of a Colchian Medea as part of the Argonautic myth; Farnell and Will argue for the precedence of a Medea based in Corinth; and West, following Wilamowitz, maintains that two Medeas originally coexisted and merged by the Archaic era. 5While this chapter will not engage with the discussion of Medea's origins, since they are impossible to trace, it will demonstrate that her Hesiodic representation is more similar to her earliest Corinthian depictions and to the Euripidean tradition than may appear at first reading.I will also engage with the scholarly debate regarding the authenticity of the ending of the Theogony, since this is where Medea is mentioned.I propose that my re-evaluation of 1 The story of the Argo is referred to at Odyssey 12,70 (Ἀργὼ πᾶσι μέλουσα, 'Argo known to all'), but Medea herself is not mentioned in the Homeric epics.Graf 1997 and Johnston 1997 ignore Medea's absence.Petroff 1966, 6, argues that Medea does not need an introduction.Huxley 1969, 61, and Hall 1989, 35, maintain that Medea must be a post-Homeric creation on the basis of the Homeric figure of Agamede (Il.11,741).See also Gordon 1999, 179, on the connection between Medea and Agamede. 2 Paus.2,3,10: δι' αὐτήν, i.e. through her kinship with Helios, whom Eumelus depicts as the first king of Corinth. 3 Corinthiaca (fr.1-9 EGF) is dated by Huxley 1969, 64, to the eighth century BC; by Graf 1997, 34, to the seventh; and by West 2002, 109, to the middle of the sixth century BC.On Eumelus, see infra.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.190 · 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