Arianna, Medea e le altre. Astuzia al femminile e arte greca
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nel mondo del mito greco la definizione funzionale di un personaggio appare sempre intimamente connessa alla sua per- cezione etica e alla sua collocazione nel quadro sociale e culturale. È il caso di personaggi come Arianna, Medea o Circe, le cui azioni si proiettano sempre nel mondo femminile dell’oikos. Nella prima parte del contributo Marco Giuman analizza i modi attraverso i quali il concetto di mētis femminile sia adattato dai repertori dell’arte greca alle figure di eroine e come questo sia tradotto in senso iconografico. La seconda parte dell’articolo, curata da Elisabetta Pala, consiste in un approfondimento della figura di Arianna, e più precisamente sui suoi strumenti di mētis per eccellenza: corona e gomitolo. Da un raffronto dei resoconti delle fonti letterarie e delle testimonianze iconografiche tra VII e V secolo a.C. si cerca di stabilire un’anteriorità cronologica tra i due oggetti, nonché le rispettive funzioni e valenze simboliche. In the Greek mythical world the functional definition of a protagonist seems strictly connected with his ethical and cultural perception in the society. That is the case of Ariadne, Medea or Circe, whose actions are always linked to the feminine concept of oikos. In the first part of this work Marco Giuman analyses the ways through which the feminine idea of mētis is iconographically adapted by Greek artists to the mythical heroines. The second part of the paper, by Elisabetta Pala, deepens on Ariadne’s character, more precisely on her own metis-tools: the crown and the thread. Comparing literary sources and iconography from VII to V century B.C. the author tries to establish which object comes earlier, as well as their respective functions and symbolic values.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".