Hecuba and the Performance of Lament on the Epic Stage (Ovid, Met . 13.399–575)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the anxieties over poetic authority and epic memory articulated in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 13.399–575. Ovid closely follows the story of Hecuba after the fall of Troy as it was told in Euripides’ Hecuba . Although his source model is primarily tragic, Ovid’s version dramatizes the function of epic composition, the creation of epic fama . While Achilles and Polyxena struggle to control their mythological memory in Ovid’s epic, Ovid plays with generic expectations. As is fitting for Ovid’s epic of “changing forms,” Hecuba’s epic and tragic traditions are transformed into a uniquely Ovidian reinterpretation of the sack of Troy. Cet article examine les inquiétudes concernant l’autorité poétique et la mémoire épique exprimées dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide XIII, 399–575. Ovide suit de près l’histoire d’Hécube après la chute de Troie, telle que racontée dans l’ Hécube d ’Euripide. Bien que le modèle de sa source soit essentiellement tragique, la version d’Ovide met toutefois en scène la fonction de la composition épique, la création d’une fama épique. Lorsqu’ Achille et Polyxène luttent pour contrôler leur mémoire mythologique dans l’épopée d’Ovide, le poète joue avec les attentes génériques. Comme il convient à l’épopée d’Ovide « sur les changements de forme », les traditions épiques et tragiques sur Hécube sont transformées en une réinterprétation purement ovidienne de la prise de Troie.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".