MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379740607 · doi:10.24215/29533392e065

La ejemplaridad de Sócrates según Platón y Jenofonte

2023· article· es· W4379740607 on OpenAlexaff
Louis André Dorion

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Filosofía (La Plata) · 2023
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and bioethics in healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En la obra de Jenofonte, Sócrates es un modelo de virtud a imitar por aquellos que aspiran a adquirir las virtudes que él encarna. La ejemplaridad de Sócrates es entonces esencialmente la de un modelo que se puede imitar. El Sócrates de Platón no ocupa nunca el rol de modelo a imitar por aquellos que aspiran a la virtud, sin duda porque la virtud, para el Sócrates de Platón, no es el fruto del ejercicio (askêsis). Si la virtud consiste esencialmente en un conocimiento, no tiene ninguna utilidad imitar a Sócrates, pues una imitación tal no procura ningún conocimiento. (Traducción de: María Sol Oliva y Graciela Marta Chichi)

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.016
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.322 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de Filosofía (La Plata)Same topicEthics and bioethics in healthcareFrench-language works237,207