Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the Ancient Greek and Roman periods, the myth of Ganymede, a beautiful Trojan boy who was abducted by Zeus on Mount Ida to be his immortal cupbearer, became the legendary origin and symbol of the aristocratic practice of pederasty. Resultingly, the various retellings of the myth reflect changes in societal perceptions of pederasty and display the unique relationship between myth, humanity, and culture. In the 21st century, artificial intelligence has similarly shone a new light on the relationship between human creativity and technology which will evolve over time as its place in society and academia is found. This paper has a two-fold goal: first to analyze the changes of which story elements are emphasized, the authors’ attitudes towards Ganymede and Zeus’ relationship, and the parallels between Ganymede’s character and eromenoi in twenty-four literary references to Ganymede across approximately 1300 years of Antiquity, and secondly, to compare those findings to the AI program ChatGPT, given the same prompt and data.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
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".