MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

La responsabilidad de la lectura: literatura y holocausto

2004· article· en· W14765561 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Montserrat Iglesias Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueEr: Revista de filosofía · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicComparative Literary Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El presente articulo reflexiona sobre el papel fundamental que no solo los textos literarios, sino el acto mismo de la lectura desempena en la elaboracion de la memoria colectiva. En la literatura del holocausto (P. Levi, J. Semprun, I. Kertesz, M. Amis, A. Munoz Molina) se aprecian estrategias textuales diferentes encaminadas a orientar al lector a un determinado modo de recepcion. Desde la lectura, ejerciendo la responsabilidad de cooperar con el texto en su construccion de sentido, se introduce la dimension pragmatica; el lector se ve interpelado para ejercer el deber de la memoria y conjugar los peligros del olvido. El espacio del lector se plantea pues como un espacio etico.

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)0.006
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEr: Revista de filosofíaSame topicComparative Literary Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207