Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study offers a critical re-evaluation of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus through the philosophical frameworks of Aristotle with particular reference to his typology of governments. To do this the tragedy has been scrutinized in terms of three different benchmarks utilizing Aristotle’s great works Politics, Poetics, and Nicomachean Ethics. While the study initiates with the juxtaposition of governmental systems of Aristotle and the political aspects of the tragedy, it further investigates how the tragedy aligns with or diverges from Aristotelian ideals of ethical character, political virtue, and tragic structure. The political structure of Rome, as portrayed in the play, reflects a fragile and transitioning polity, aligning neither with Aristotle’s ideal constitutional model nor with his stable deviations. Coriolanus’s rejection of deliberative politics and the common people imparts him an anti-polis figure. Thus, Coriolanus emerges not only as a structurally Aristotelian tragedy but also as a dramatic interrogation of personal excellence in unstable political regimes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".