MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411871354 · doi:10.3828/fs.2025.79.3.2

Phèdre’s Sapphic Speech: Racine’s <i>Phèdre</i> , Sappho’s ‘Fragment 31’, and the Theatrical Sublime

2025· article· en· W4411871354 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Marcinkowski

Bibliographic record

VenueFrench Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSublimeFragment (logic)ArtLiteratureArt historyPhilosophyComputer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In one of the most famous passages from Phèdre (1677), Racine makes what some of his contemporaries recognized as an allusion to Sappho’s ‘fragment 31’, a poem whose only known source is Longinus’s On the Sublime . This essay re-examines this allusion within the context of the play’s initial performance by considering what Sappho’s words could have come to mean when spoken by the actress Marie Champmeslé. It argues that Phèdre’s Sapphic speech marks an important moment not just in the history of Sappho’s reception but also in the history of the sublime, one where the ideological divisions that separate the theatrical sublime of the French neoclassical period from a more Romantic, masculine, and anti-theatrical sublime start to take shape.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueFrench StudiesSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207