MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W319984855 · doi:10.1353/mou.2011.0046

Allusion and Ambiguity in ps-Seneca, Hercules Oetaeus

2011· article· fr· W319984855 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cedric Littlewood

Bibliographic record

VenueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of Canada · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllusionLiteratureTragedy (event)Character (mathematics)ArtMistakeAmbiguityPhilosophyLinguisticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like her Sophoclean predecessor, ps-Seneca’s Deianira kills her husband by mistake, sending him a robe that poisons him rather than restores his affections. Allusions to the words of vengeful protagonists—particularly Medea and Juno in Seneca’s Medea and Hercules Furens —complicate Deianira’s character with the models of deliberate killers. Deianira’s choice, to pursue anger or desire, is also a choice between the genres of tragedy and elegy, and in this respect ps-Seneca revisits the ironic mode distinctive of Ovid’s Heroides and of the Senecan tragedies that reappropriate their tragic material. Comme l’héroïne sophocléenne avant elle, la Déjanire du pseudo-Sénèque tue son mari par erreur, en lui envoyant une robe qui l’empoisonne au lieu de lui rendre son amour. Des allusions aux discours de protagonistes vengeurs – particulièrement Médée et Junon dans la Médée et l’ Hercule furieux de Sénèque – étoffent le personnage de Déjanire en l’associant à des modèles de tueurs volontaires. Le choix de Déjanire, de poursuivre sa colère ou son désir, est aussi un choix entre les genres tragique et élégiaque et, à cet égard, le pseudo-Sénèque revisite le mode ironique distinctif des Héroïdes d’Ovide et celui des tragédies de Sénèque qui se réapproprient leur matériel tragique.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.021
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of CanadaSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207