El desengaño de Wendy: análisis comparado de tres versiones fílmicas de "Peter Pan"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El relato de Pan ha conocido numerosas versiones y adaptaciones desde que James Matthew Barrie (1860-1937) lo creara a comienzos del siglo XX. En los ultimos anos hay un interes renovado por el estudio de la pluralidad inherente de esta constelacion ficcional que tiene en su centro a un nino que no crece. El presente articulo se centra en las tres adaptaciones cinematograficas de la historia que se mantienen mas cercanas al argumento original tal y como Barrie lo fijo en la obra de teatro Peter Pan o el nino que no queria crecer (1904) y en la novela Peter y (1911): la que dirigio Herbert Brenon (1924), la pelicula de animacion producida por Disney (1953) y la version de P. J. Hogan (2003). El analisis se centra en el modo en que cada una de estas adaptaciones cuenta un pasaje concreto del relato -el momento en que Wendy se desengana respecto de los sentimientos de hacia ella- y en como relacionan esto con su decision, inmediatamente posterior, de volver a Londres. Este micro-analisis permite sacar a la luz interesantes divergencias entre las versiones, muy reveladoras de la intencionalidad que subyace a las mismas.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".