Bibliographic record
Abstract
Des études récentes ont démontré que la critique de la rhétorique dans le Gorgias comporte elle-même une dimension rhétorique. L’analyse qui suit porte uniquement sur la première partie du dialogue - l’entretien entre Socrate et Gorgias - à partir de deux points de vue complémentaires : (1) adaptée à la personnalité et aux opinions de Gorgias, l’argumentation de Socrate contrefait et transpose des procédés de la rhétorique de l’époque, mais avec une visée protreptique et éthique plutôt qu’éristique ; (2) auteur du dialogue, Platon y met en œuvre des stratégies, évidemment distinctes des stratégies argumentatives de Socrate personnage - tout comme le Gorgias historique est distinct du Gorgias créé par Platon. Cette distinction permet d’interpréter l’ironie et la communication indirecte de Socrate personnage d’une part et de Platon auteur d’autre part.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".