Bibliographic record
Abstract
empezar, digamos que la trama original de esta historia no la ideo el propio Cervantes, sino que la tomo de una breve pieza teatral anonima de la epoca titulada El entremes de los romances, cuya primera edicion data de 1591. Lo demostro don Ramon Menendez Pidal en 1920 y lo recordo despues don Fernando Lazaro Carreter en su estudio “Las voces del Quijote” contenido en la introduccion a la edicion del Quijote de F. Rico (2004). El protagonista de esa farsa se llama Bartolo, un labrador aficionado a la poesia que enloquece a causa de la lectura de romances. Cervantes comenzo a escribir con estos materiales, lo que en principio solo iba a ser una historia burlesca y breve, al modo de las novelas ejemplares. Pero su genio creativo, que bebia en la tradicion realista de la Celestina y la picaresca espanola, enriquecio el relato con el inmenso caudal informativo que sobre la vida caballeresca aportaban las cronicas castellanas del final de la Edad Media, y creo un personaje inconcebible, don Quijote, cuya personalidad desbordo sus previsiones y lo obligo a alterar su relato.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 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".