MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205978334 · doi:10.18778/1733-8077.9.3.07

Love, Despair, and Resiliency: Ovid’s Contributions to an Interactionist Analysis of Intimate Relations

2013· article· en· W4205978334 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Prus

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Sociology Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRomanceSociologySymbolic interactionismSet (abstract data type)Social psychologyEthnographyEntertainmentInterpersonal relationshipPsychoanalysisEpistemologyPsychologyAestheticsSocial scienceAnthropologyLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ovid (Ovidius – Publius Ovidius Naso; 43 BCE-18 CE) is well known in classical studies and poetic circles for his insightful portrayals of heterosexual relations. However, his The Art of Love and related texts have received scant attention from those in the social sciences. Ovid’s writings on love may be best known for their advisory and entertainment motifs, but this same set of texts also provides an extended and comparatively detailed set of observations on heterosexual interchanges, as well as some remarkably astute analysis of interpersonal relations more generally. Developed within a symbolic interactionist frame (Mead 1934; Blumer 1969; Strauss 1993; Prus 1996; 1997; 1999), this paper gives particular attention to the processes by which people engage others in romantic contexts, make sense of their experiences with one another, deal with an assortment of third-parties, and manage wide ranges of related emotional sensations as they work their ways through aspects of the broader relationship process (from preliminary anticipations and initial encounters to terminations and re-involvements of relationships). It is in these respects that this paper considers the more distinctive ethnographic potential of Ovid’s depictions of love in the Roman classical era. As an instance of ethno-history, Ovid’s considerations of people’s involvements with love, sex, and romance, as well as the varying emotional states that people experience along the way, add some highly instructive cross-cultural and trans-historical dimensions to more contemporary, generic examinations of affective relationships. Using Ovid’s materials as an ethno-historical database with which to assess contemporary interactionist notions of “developing relationships,” this paper concludes with a consideration of the implications of Ovid’s works and contemporary interactionist studies for research on intimate relationships, emotionality, and influence work.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.021
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Sociology ReviewSame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207