Accusation and Affirmation: intertextuality in the Writings of Luis Bonafoux and Leopoldo Alas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A finales del siglo diecinueve, Luis Bonafoux (Puerto Rico) polemiz? con Leopol do Alas (Espa?a), en un intercambio que se present? como cr?tica literaria y que se entreteji? con la ficci?n que los dos escritores compusieron durante el mismo per?odo. Bonafoux y Clar?n eran enemigos, pero su conflicto tambi?n era un pro yecto mutuo de autodefinici?n y autorizaci?n, adem?s de un cuestionamiento de la posibilidad de ser a la vez cr?tico y autor de ficci?n. Las acusaciones que hizo Bonafoux sobre los supuestos plagios de Clar?n, y la respuesta que le dio Clar?n, revelan un di?logo en que el uno interioriza al otro. Mientras que en Clar?n se reflejan algunos textos de Bonafoux, ?ste se deja perturbar por La Regenta cuan do escribe su novela El avispero, de modo que ambos escritores colaboran, a veces a pesar suyo, en la exploraci?n del car?cter evasivo de la originalidad. Aunque Clar?n sea una eminencia dentro de la cr?tica y la creaci?n del momento, tambi?n es cierto que los dardos envenenados lanzados por Bonafoux le llevan a mostrar su cara m?s humana.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".