FAIRYTALES AND MAKE-BELIEVE, OR SPINNING STORIES ABOUT POROS AND PENIA IN PLATO'S SYMPOSIUM: A LITERARY AND COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a two-fold study of the muthos of Poros and Penia as narrated by Diotima to Socrates at Symposium 203b1–204a6. The first part employs several features of traditional literary analysis while the second part employs computation stylistics through a study of the most routine elements of vocabulary. Both approaches have been utilised in order to examine the genre of the passage and to present a combined interpretation, privileging a reading of it as an example of an inspired voice that employs the seemingly simple narrative structure of folk- or fairytale to convey a particularly significant and complex meditation on the nature of Eros/eros. This combined approach not only suggests an underlying importance of the narrative that modern readers (or even ancient readers who despised fairytale) might miss, but also demonstrates that what may be “regarded” or “sensed” as a piece of narrative belonging to a particular genre—in this instance, fairytale—can be studied with the aid of quantitative data that complements the qualitative approach of traditional literary analysis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".