MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115561449 · doi:10.4000/philosant.3773

Une tradition du suicide chez les cyniques

2020· article· fr· W3115561449 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle Chouinard

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophie antique · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plusieurs versions de la mort de Diogène de Sinope sont rapportées au livre VI des Vies et doctrines des philosophes illustres. Les héritiers de Diogène ont transmis à la postérité celle du suicide par asphyxie volontaire, une mort qu’ils estiment digne de sa philosophie. Cette étude vise à trouver le fondement cynique du suicide de Diogène grâce à une reconstitution du rapport des cyniques à la mort volontaire. Plusieurs fragments et témoignages montrent que les cyniques considèrent la vie et la mort comme indifférentes : ce qui importe avant tout est de mener une bonne vie. Le suicide est justifié seulement lorsque le corps du philosophe souffre d’un affaiblissement extrême et durable. Pour atteindre et maintenir son idéal de liberté, le cynique doit soumettre son corps à un entraînement qui requiert une certaine force corporelle. Aussi, dès qu’il n’est plus capable de pratiquer l’ascèse cynique en raison des limitations physiques dues à la vieillesse ou à la maladie, le philosophe n’hésite pas à quitter la vie. Cette justification est attestée dans les exhortations au suicide formulées par des cyniques ainsi que dans les récits des morts volontaires de Métroclès, d’Héraclès, de Démonax et de Pérégrinos.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.034
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0050.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophie antiqueSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207