El lugar de la crítica literaria de Northrop Frye en la literatura (canadiense)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este articulo toma como punto de partida unas palabras pronunciadas por Margaret Atwood como tributo de homenaje a Northrop Frye tras su muerte. Asi, la escritora canadiense afirmaba lo siguiente: �Because [of] its style, flexibility, and formal elegance, its broad range and systematic structure, his literary criticism takes its place easily within the body of literature itself�. En el presente trabajo pretendemos analizar los aspectos de la critica literaria de Frye que refuerzan e impulsan su fundamento literario. Para dilucidar dichos aspectos proponemos contemplar el conjunto de la obra critica de Frye desde una doble vision: esto es, una escritura que pretende dar respuesta a la celebre pregunta planteada en la introduccion de Anatomy of Criticism (1957): �What if criticism is a science as well as an art?�. Entre los aspectos que refuerzan el caracter literario de la escritura critica de Frye, prestamos atencion al concepto de vision y al tropo que conocemos como metafora. Por ultimo, hemos considerado el peso que posee Canada en la critica de Frye. En este sentido, hemos senalado la tension sin resolver que encontramos en sus escritos sobre Canada entre lo nacional y lo universal. Igualmente hemos considerado hasta que punto la biografia personal de Frye se asoma en su obra critica y la condiciona y si ello nos permite afirmar que esta posee su lugar en el corpus de la propia literatura canadiense: within the body of (Canadian) literature itself.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".