MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

"Aristotle’s Logic of Syllogism and Mimesis as Applied to Speculating and Imitating Pandemics in St. John Mandel’s Station Eleven (2014) and Amir Tag Elsir’s Ebola 76 (2012)"

2022· article· en· W4320028343 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alyaa M Saad Mustafa

Bibliographic record

VenueBeni-Suef University International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyllogismPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)HistoryPhilosophyEpistemologyMedicineDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the applicability of the Aristotelian logic of syllogism and mimesis to speculating and imitating epidemics through two pandemic narratives. Two literary texts relating to two different cultures are analyzed: Ebola 76 (2012) by the Eastern Sudanese Amir Tag Elsir which is considered a prescient of the second wave of Ebola in 2014 and Station Eleven (2014) by the Western Canadian St. John Mandel which is also considered a prescient of COVID-19 in 2020. These viruses are logically speculated and imitated in fiction because of the certain mutation of previous similar viruses. Following Aristotle’s logic, these two novelists apply the deduction method of reasoning to their texts. Aristotle’s logic claims that any certain conclusion should start first with two premises. The first premise is that there is a virus. The second premise is that this virus mutates. Then, the certain conclusion is a newly mutated virus. Thus, despite cultural differences, both novelists were able to imitate the past and the present just to speculate about future pandemics in real life.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.020
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBeni-Suef University International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences →Same topicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts→French-language works237,207→