Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aristotle on Sexual Difference examines Aristotle’s conception of sexual difference—the differences between male and female, men and women—both in his biological works and in his political philosophy. For Aristotle, the problem of sexual difference emerges from the tension between his assertions that the female is imperfect relative to the male and that men by nature should rule over women, and his commitment to two other claims: (1) that sex is a division in the matter and not in the form of the genus animal—so there is no difference in essential form between the male and female members of a sexually differentiated species, and (2) that sexual difference, and therefore the existence of sexed individuals, is good, both for generation and for the political life characteristic of human beings. This book analyzes how Aristotle would describe both the physiological and the psychological defects of women, and then asks how those defects might also be benefits on his account, and how the different defects might be causally connected. It has three aims. The first is to provide a comprehensive analysis of Aristotle’s conception of sexual difference in animal bodies and in political life. The second is to demonstrate that Aristotle takes sexual difference to be valuable to an animal species as well as to the city-state. The third is to establish the link between the explanation Aristotle offers for the deficiencies of the female body and his justification of distinct roles for the sexes in the household and the city.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".