MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256212018 · doi:10.5117/9789463723251_ch05

Playing with Paradoxes in Troilus and Cressida

2021· book-chapter· en· W4256212018 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Badir

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Philosophy and Thought
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRidiculousAmusementGreeksOrder (exchange)AestheticsArtPhilosophyLiteraturePsychologySocial psychologyEconomicsClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1.3 of Troilus and Cressida, Ulysses reports that Patroclus has been “pageanting” the Greeks for Achilles who languishes in bed. Ulysses claims the performance is terrible: Patroclus’s gestures are ridiculous, his dialogue wooden, his emotions overstated. We recognize, however, that Patroclus is doing impressions and Achilles’ amusement is derived from hyperbolic likenesses. This chapter will consider this scene of impersonation as both private game and public play in order to show that while the bed game is framed as wasteful and unproductive, the report constitutes a rare moment in this play, in which words actually capture the truth of the things they seek to represent.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.041
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClassical Philosophy and ThoughtFrench-language works237,207