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 <i>muthos</i> of Poros and Penia as narrated by Diotima to Socrates at <i>Symposium</i> 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/<i>eros</i>. 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".