Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a famous fragment of Antiphanes’ Poetry (fr. 189), a character compares the resources available to tragedy and comedy in terms of inherited characters and stories. Mention Oedipus and the audience knows what will happen to him and who the other main characters are; comedy needs to invent everything – names, back-story, situation, crisis. ‘If some Chremes or Pheidon leaves any one of these out, he's whistled off stage’ (20f.). The main focus here is plot, but embedded in this are claims about the use of recurring characters, the audience's knowledge of those characters, their stories and associations. Comedy supposedly lacks these advantages and is forced to rely on its own devices. This is, at best, a half-truth. Middle Comedy, the period of Antiphanes, was a time when Greek comedy was increasingly rooted in typical or ‘stock’ characters – the use of Pheidon and Chremes as shorthand for comic characters is itself an indication. The trend develops further into the strongly type-based drama of Menander and his contemporaries, where stock characters were married to a relatively circumscribed set of plots in which love and/or paternity were a central element, with the overcoming of personal and social barriers the main concern. Such stock characters have been held to be either directly or indirectly, spiritually or actually, the ancestor of character types in one broad strand of popular Western comedy, through Roman comedy on into commedia dell’ arte into (among other things) modern British pantomime and Punch and Judy shows (and other European puppet traditions). Analogies have also been drawn with domestic situation comedy on television.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".