MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What Socrates Learned From Parmenides. Part 2. Hypothesis, Antilogy, and Philosophical Self-Defense in the Phaedo

2024· article· en· W4403473918 on OpenAlexaff
Annie Larivée

Bibliographic record

VenueORGANON · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Philosophy and Thought
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSOCRATESPhilosophyEpistemologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

My first study identified the cognitive abilities and argumentative skills developed by the gymnasia presented in Plato’s Parmenides. Since the correspondence with the intellectual virtues Socrates displays in other dialogues is too remarkable to be a coincidence, I concluded that Socrates must have trained with Parmenides’ eightfold routine in his youth. My second study supports this conclusion by drawing attention to textual evidence found in the Phaedo. The autobiographical account Socrates shares in that dialogue indicates how the gymnasia impacted his intellectual development, mostly through the action of hypothesizing. This strategic move used by the Eleatics transformed the originally sectarian way So- crates related to Forms and enabled him to protect his theory from attacks in a secure yet non-dogmatic way.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueORGANONSame topicClassical Philosophy and ThoughtFrench-language works237,207