In the Margins of Justice: The Negotiation of Social Values in Athenian Forensic Oratory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation is a study of four seminal value-terms in Athenian forensic oratory: philanthrōpia (generosity), epieikeia (decency), suggnōmē (pardon), and eusebeia (piety). Each chapter examines a different value-term, offers a theory of how that term works in Athenian forensic oratory, and then explores the political, social, and juridical consequences of the theory. Chapter One argues that philanthrōpia is not a disinterested “love of man,” but a particular type of generosity that implies a power-relation; as such, it was fought over by aristocrats and democrats alike, since it had the potential to signify both the noblesse oblige of the elite and the idealized goodwill of Athenian democracy. Chapter Two presents epieikeia as a flexible counter-value that can be put to diametrically-opposed ends: in the hands of Demosthenes, it is a baseline democratic “decency” attainable by all, while for Isocrates, it is an aristocratic excellence of education to which only the elite can aspire. Chapter Three makes the case for understanding suggnōmē as pardon based on a strong sense of cognitive and affective identification; as emblematic of the larger role of identification in the Athenian courtroom, suggnōmē was both constantly appealed to by the orators as well as periodically disowned. Finally, Chapter Four argues that eusebeia is a will-to-memory that, while seeming to recall the content of the dikastic oath, in fact acts as a floating signifier that the orators use to bolster that other floating signifier of the Athenian dikastērion: dikē. It is shown throughout that the study of these value-terms gives us insight not only into the terms themselves, but also into the larger political, social, juridical thought-worlds of Athens.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".