MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

La praxis y la parodia del discurso del ars moriendi en el Quijote de 1615

2010· article· es· W1585381272 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

VenueAnales Cervantinos · 2010
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEarly Modern Women Writers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En este artículo se examina el uso de los tópicos del bien morir, discurso religioso y moralizante que se transformaba en la España del siglo XVI debido a la mayor clericalización de la muerte, en la segunda parte del Quijote (1615). A través del análisis del contexto sociohistórico del ars moriendi junto con el estudio del uso pragmático de refranes, axiomas e imágenes relacionadas con la muerte en la conversación de los personajes cervantinos, es posible iluminar matices irónicos y aún paródicos que ponen de manifiesto las tensiones inherentes en la transición desde una óptica medieval sobre la muerte hacia una perspectiva más moderna.

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)0.001
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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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