MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117533701 · doi:10.5937/acthist44-62373

When love ails: Lovesickness and the authenticity of emotions in Plautus' Cistellaria

2025· article· en· W7117533701 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueActa historiae medicinae stomatologiae pharmaciae medicinae veterinariae · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicalizationComedyNarrativePassionComicsExtant taxonFeelingConstruct (python library)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the first extant instance of the medicalization of love in Roman literature. In Plautus' Cistellaria, love is not just conceived through a conventional comic lens of erotic desire but as a psychosomatic disorder, expressed through symptoms that blur the boundary between mental disturbance and bodily illness. The analysis shows how Plautus integrates medical and popular knowledge to construct a model of amor that ancient audiences could recognize as pathological. This medicalization of passion serves a distinctly literary purpose: by grounding emotion in physical and cognitive symptoms, Plautus grants psychological depth and credibility to his protagonists. The authority of medical thought thus legitimizes what comedy typically trivializes, sincere feeling and genuine distress. Cistellaria emerges as a case study in how Roman literature appropriated scientific discourse to substantiate and shape narrative coherence. The study situates this medicalization of passion within broader ancient discourses on disease and affects, revealing how Plautus' comedy participates in the cultural translation of medical knowledge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.022
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.335
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueActa historiae medicinae stomatologiae pharmaciae medicinae veterinariaeSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207