Rereading "Rayuela": Hypergraphy, Hermaphrodism, and Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este art?culo es un an?lisis de la teor?a de lectura y que propone Rayuela. Primero, critica y desconstruye las teor?as mis?ginas de lectura que aparentemente postula la novela y se enfoca en aspectos estructurales que evocan a un hermafrodita, t?rmino que definimos en nuestro an?lisis. Fragmentado ya el g?nero lector, su subjetividad y racionalidad tambi?n se pulverizan y se hacen esquizofr?nicas. Se reconoce en Oliveira, pues, la figura del lector esquizoide, err?tico, n?mada, un misreader irreverente a categor?as fijas (inclusive la categor?a de lector/a), aficcionado a peripecias y viajes literales o literarios en un constante cruzar de fronteras petrificadas. Es una figura de excesivo, incapaz de reconocerse a s? mismo. Esta interpretaci?n nos dirige a la consideraci?n de una escritura hiperb?lica que llamamos hipergraf?a: a) en el sentido de la discontinua, no lineal, incongruente, a trav?s de la cual se puede relacionar a Rayuela con el hipertexto (sin confluir?a con ello); b) en el sentido de una hip er como exceso, interrupci?n o s?ncopa de las categor?as, oposiciones y jerarqu?as problem?ticas que la novela parece establecer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".