MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7119100237 · doi:10.1353/phx.2025.a978864

Mime and Martial's Ideal Readers

2025· article· en· W7119100237 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jovan Cvjetičanin

Bibliographic record

VenuePhoenix · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeal (ethics)AnalogyMoralityConsumption (sociology)Beauty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article examines the analogy between mime spectators and epigram readers and its role in the construction of Martial's ideal audience. Through this analogy, Martial argues that the consumption of mime and epigram does not reflect the personal morality of authors, performers and audiences. Abstract: Ce chapitre examine l'analogie entre les spectateurs de mimes et les lecteurs d'épigrammes ainsi que le rôle de celle-ci dans la construction du public idéal de Martial. A travers cette analogie, Martial soutient que la consommation de mimes et d'épigrammes ne reflète pas la moralité personnelle de leurs auteurs, de leurs acteurs, ou de leurs publics.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 venuePhoenixSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207