Bibliographic record
Abstract
El trabajo propone una lectura Retorica de Aristoteles con el objeto de puntualizar su caracter distintivo: arte argumentativo sobre cuestiones practica. La retorica, en la hora actual, recibe diversas significaciones y es analizada por distintas disciplinas. Aqui se intenta rescatar la significacion que tuvo en la antiguedad griega yy destacar su perfil politico. Aistoteles asume la tradicion sofistica de la retorica y la eleva al estatus de tecnica de dar razones, cuya principal caracteristica son los medios de que se vale: los logicos (el entimema y el ejemplo) y extralogicos (el ethos del orador y el pathos del auditorio). Recursos que se justifican en funcion del ambito dentro del cual se desenvuelve: la praxis. Su vinculacion con la politica se traba, precisamente, en razon de dichos medios y, el ambito en que se desenvuelve. El lenguaje, la palabra cuya dimension pragmatica posibilita la relacion entre hombres; los recursos que se sirve: los afectivos, establecen un especial entendimiento y comprension en las cuestiones eticas-politicas y los temas de que se ocupa: la accion politica-moral del hombre y su comunidad.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".