Rendre raison des dieux : théonymie et pouvoir des noms chez Hésiode, Eschyle et Platon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce dossier comporte quatre parties. L’introduction décrit le cadre théorique et méthodologique où se situe l’étude des théonymes et de leurs étymologies chez les auteurs traités dans les sections suivantes. La deuxième partie porte sur quelques analyses nominales chez Hésiode (Cyclopes, Cent-Bras, Aphrodite, Titans, Pandore) qui permettent de préciser le rapport du poète à la tradition. La troisième partie, centrée sur les Euménides d’Eschyle, montre comment le sens donné à certains théonymes ou expressions théophores présents dans la pièce (Phoibos, Areios Pagos, Pallas, Erinues) contribue à la démarche mythopoïétique déployée à la fin de l’Orestie. La quatrième partie propose une lecture qui articule les étymologies de théonymes présentées dans le Cratyle de Platon au discours cosmologique et théologique mis de l’avant dans d’autres dialogues platoniciens.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".