MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1489224059 · doi:10.18800/lexis.201001.002

Don Quijote, el escribidor y el escritor

2010· article· es· W1489224059 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLexis · 2010
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLatin American Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En sus diversos estudios críticos, Mario Vargas Llosa ha mostrado un especial interés en reflexionar sobre la teoría novelística de Miguel de Cervantes en función de sus propias preocupaciones como estudioso y novelista. Basta leer el ensayo “Una novela para el siglo XXI” que escribió en 2005 como introducción para la edición del Quijote con motivo de la celebración del IV Centenario, para constatar que Vargas Llosa “lee” a Cervantes en función de sus propias reflexiones sobre la teoría de la novela, el fanatismo o la “locura” de los personajes, la ficción y sus relaciones con la “realidad”, las voces narrativas o el problema del narrador. Pero la relación de Mario Vargas Llosa con Cervantes va más allá del ámbito teó-rico o reflexivo y se manifiesta en la propia creación novelística tal como ocurre, específicamente, en La tía Julia y el escribidor. En ese sentido, el objetivo principal de este trabajo es analizar el “diálogo” que se establece en La tía Julia y el escribidor con el Quijote a partir de la “locura” de Pedro Camacho, el escribidor de radionovelas creado por Vargas Llosa, y sus semejanzas con la del caballero andante.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.242 · 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