MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7019711455

Il numero dei drammi satireschi sofoclei: Sofocle alle Lenee ed i drammi prosatirici

2012· article· en· W7019711455 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCINECA IRIS Institutial research information system (University of Pisa) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVictoryQuarter (Canadian coin)Set (abstract data type)Tragedy (event)Competition (biology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper is to provide arguments for a lower number of satyr plays in the corpus of Sophocles than usually assumed. Since in classical Athens playwrights used to enter the dramatic competition at the Great Dionysia with a set of three tragedies plus one satyr play, the common belief in modern research is that roughly a quarter of Sophocles’ literary output – amounting to 120 dramatic pieces – must be satyric and not tragic (§ 1). The present paper puts forward two sets of arguments to confute this method of reasoning. First (§ 2), a case is made for the hypothesis that Sophocles staged plays not only at the Great Dionysia, but also at the Lenaia, where only tragedies and no satyr plays at all were performed (a major piece of evidence in support of this hypothesis is IG II2 2319, which may record a victory of Sophocles at the Lenaia in 419-18 BC). Secondly (§ 3), it shows why it cannot be ruled out that Sophocles, like Euripides, also wrote ‘prosatyric’ plays (“Alcestis-like” cases). Since the number of Sophoclean satyr plays is therefore likely to have been lower than traditionally assumed, the paper urges future researchers to greater caution when proposing new identifications of satyr plays in the body of this poet’s fragments (§ 4).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCINECA IRIS Institutial research information system (University of Pisa)Same topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207