MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409426321 · doi:10.33043/r6rzpcab

Goal Achievement in Classical Stoicism and Modern $toicism

2025· article· en· W4409426321 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan C. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueStance An International Undergraduate Philosophy Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Philosophy and Thought
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStoicismPsychologyMathematics educationPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many claim the philosophy of Stoicism is useful for goal achievement, suggesting it is conducive to productivity and success. However, classical Stoicism is directly opposed to goal-achievement mentalities. While Stoicism focuses primarily on developing a certain standard of moral character regardless of external circumstances, this modern goal-orientation focuses exclusively on external achievements, most often toward financial ends. Thus, I distinguish the two as Stoicism in the former and $toicism in the latter. I discuss key differences in how the two views approach goal achievement, revealing that modern $toicism is not a revival but a misrepresentation of classical Stoicism.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStance An International Undergraduate Philosophy JournalSame topicClassical Philosophy and ThoughtFrench-language works237,207