MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1041758440

"Duende" and Apocalypse in Lorca's Theory and Poetics

2001· article· es· W1041758440 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Martha Nandorfy

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Canadiense de Estudios Hispánicos · 2001
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSpanish Literature and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanitiesPoeticsPersonaPhilosophyPoetryLiterature
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Federico Garc?a Lorca desarrolla una teor?a muy original y anti-te?rica en Juego y teor?a del e Imaginaci?n, inspiraci?n, evasi?n, dos ensayos claves para interpretar el concepto de la negaci?n en el discurso apocal?ptico. Su colecci?n de poemas, Poeta en Nueva York, representa de modo performativo todos los aspectos de la muerte desde el sacrificio personal hasta el apocalipsis colectivo. El discurso apocal?ptico promete revelar lo indecible, pero el poeta en Nueva York traspasa los l?mites de la profec?a para sacrificarse y hablar desde el lado de la muerte. Lorca elabora un lenguaje del silencio en cuyo hueco deja resonar la voz del Otro. Ser pose?do por el duende implica dejarse herir mortalmente para recibir la creatividad m?xima que s?lo se arraiga en la herida. Esta paradoja que confunde eros y thanatos, el principio de la creatividad y el principio de la negaci?n, el yo y el otro tambi?n estructura el discurso apocal?ptico. Lorca subvierte el mensaje religioso del apocalipsis depur?ndolo hasta llegar a lo sublime de un panmateriali smo absoluto donde cesa la dualidad inherente a la vida. El duende posibilita la desintegraci?n del ego y la traves?a al espacio tel?rico que configura en t?rminos materiales como el lado de la muerte.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.030
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Canadiense de Estudios HispánicosSame topicSpanish Literature and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207