MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W157393065

Queer Ethics and the Event of Love in Álvaro Pombo's "Contra natura" (2005)

2010· article· es· W157393065 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Vilaseca

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Canadiense de Estudios Hispánicos · 2010
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicComparative Literary Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este articulo se centra en la representacion del y la amistad en una de las ultimas y mas aclamadas novelas de Alvaro Pombo, Contra natura (2005). Ba sandonos en las ideas de Alain Badiou sobre el del amor que aparecen, entre otras obras, en su Logics of Worlds, y, en menor medida, en el concepto derridiano de amistad de Politics of Friendship, examina la relacion entre los cuatro protagonistas de la novela de Pombo (Javier Salazar, Juanjo Garnacho, Paco Allende y Ramon Duran) a fin de determinar que constituye un verdadero amoroso en el sentido empleado por Badiou. Este ar ticulo argumenta que, a pesar de que la novela (a traves de su idiosincratico y obstinado narrador) parece representar la renuncia de Allende al amorfisico con el joven Duran como un acto de integridad etica, es el profundamente antipatico Javier Salazar quien, con su respuesta inflexible al rechazo de Juanjo Garnacho, se erige de hecho en el sujeto de un acontecimiento amoroso. Al caracterizar a Sa lazar como un agente de la pulsion de muerte y de lo que Lee Edelman denomina sinthomosexuality, la novela de Pombo acaba defendiendo simultaneamente una etica queer radical y la nueva politica dialectico-materialista propugnada por Badiou.

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)0.003
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0140.023
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Canadiense de Estudios HispánicosSame topicComparative Literary Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207