MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399674263 · doi:10.1590/2176-4573p64920

O Elogio de Helena de Isocrates: argumentação em muitas camadas

2024· article· pt· W4399674263 on OpenAlexaff
Bárbara Amaral da Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueBakhtiniana Revista de Estudos do Discurso · 2024
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanitiesGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RESUMO Por volta de 390 a.C., Isócrates escreveu um texto dedicado à mítica Helena, Elogio de Helena. Segundo o rétor, seu objetivo era enaltecer aquela personagem, reconhecida em duas das principais obras de Homero, a Ilíada e a Odisseia. Embora o texto isocrático já tenha sido exaustivamente estudado, acreditamos que a Análise do Discurso proporcionará uma visão mais aprofundada do texto e de suas estratégias argumentativas. Assim, nosso objetivo é analisar como se deu a construção argumentativa do Elogio de Helena. A partir da análise foi possível perceber que os discursos possuem diferentes camadas, que Isócrates utiliza a história de Helena como base para sua argumentação e que o retórico reproduz imaginários de feminilidade e masculinidade, embora este não fosse um objetivo explícito.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.308 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBakhtiniana Revista de Estudos do DiscursoSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207