Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este art?culo analiza la tension que existe en aleph entre dos momentos de la vida literaria de Jorge Luis Borges. Se sostiene que Carlos Argentino Daneri es en realidad una representaci?n ir?nica del propio Borges, del joven poeta ultratsta y no s?lo una alusi?n a la mediocre vida cultural de Buenos Aires de los a?os cuarenta, como tradicionalmente se ha considerado. A trav?s de una inversi?n del concepto de the anxiety of influence de Harold Bloom se estudia tambi?n la compleja relaci?n entre Dante y Borges y c?mo el descubrimiento relativamente tard?o por parte de Borges de la fuerza po?tica del florentino le hace ver las virtudes de la tautolog?a en el proceso de creaci?n literaria. Adem?s, se propone que despu?s del virtual abandono de la poes?a (1929-1960), el nivel de experimentaci?n que Borges descubre en la obra de Dante en conjunci?n con su ascenso como escritor de prosa le ayudan a solidificar otro concepto de literatura y a refugiarse irremediablemente en el patrimonio de las met?foras de la literatura universal especialmente europea consolidando de esta forma su implacable sospecha por todas las po?ticas de la novedad. Estas razones hicieron inevitable y l?gico su retorno a la l?rica puesto que luego de haber pasado por el crisol de la escritura de sus dos colecciones m?s c?lebres de cuentos (Ficciones y El aleph) ya se hab?a depurado de los vestigios del ultra?smo en cuyo seno hab?a nacido como poeta.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".