«И МАЛЬЧИКИ КРОВАВЫЕ В ГЛАЗАХ... И РАД БЕЖАТЬ, ДА НЕКУДА... УЖАСНО!»: СЦЕНА ДЕТОУБИЙСТВА И ЛЮДОЕДСТВА В РОМАНЕ ЛОЛЛИАНА «ФИНИКИЙСКИЕ ИСТОРИИ»
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Статья посвящена особому «языку» и «поведенческому репертуару» латентного варварства в художественной литературе Рима эпохи Империи на примере малоизвестного в отечественном антиковедении романа Лоллиана «Финикийские истории» (II в. н.э.). Анализируя фрагмент В1 со сценой инфантицида и антропофагии, автор ставит вопрос о мотивах включения его в текст Лоллианом и об отношении автора и его аудитории к таким свидетельствам. Автор показывает, что в романе, содержащем весь набор сюжетов и образов для передачи чуж(д)ой культуры «варварского Востока», имеет место инверсия. Автор аргументирует это тем, что творцы таких «бестселлеров», описывая шокирующие сцены, volens-nolens способствовали пропаганде «цивилизованной» нетерпимости и демонстрировали тот тип латентного варварства, которое идеологически разрушало государство изнутри. The article examines the specific «language» and the «behavioral paradigm» of the «latent barbarism» in Roman literature during the imperial period, with the focus on Lollianus’s Phoenician Tales (2nd cent. C.E.), which has not yet received any significant attention in Russian scholarship. While analyzing the episode of infanticide and cannibalism in the fragment B.1, the author raises the questions about Lollianus’s rationale for including it in the text, and about the attitude of Lollianus and his audience to such evidence. The author explains the inclusion of this episode as a case of inversion, which fits the novel that depicts an alien culture by conveying a whole range of images and stereotypes of the «eastern barbarism». The author argues that, like other authors of such popular «bestsellers», Lollianus offered these outrageous scenes both reinforcing «civilized intolerance» and displaying the type of «latent barbarism» that objectively corrupted Roman ideology.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".