As representações do imaginário popular nos romances de Carlos de Oliveira
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the bond between the fictional prose of Carlos de Oliveira and the popular traditions.In order to do that, the first four novels of the author have been chosen: Casa na Duna (1943), Alcateia (1944), Pequenos Burgueses (1948), and Uma Abelha na Chuva (1953).In addition, as a subsidy, the Contos Tradicionais Portugueses, a collection of popular tales published in 1957 by Carlos de Oliveira and José Gomes Ferreira has been analyzed.The popular tale, a rich source of interdisciplinary information, anonymous and ubiquitous, is a living document of habits, ideas, and mentalities of people.Its representations have impregnated Carlos de Oliveira's fiction, an artist who lived in a poor, rural area called the Gândara, which, by its turn, ended up having an intense influence in his work.The representations of the popular imaginary that have been tracked by his novels include entities, beliefs, myths, proverbs, and popular sayings.As this work intended to unveil, tradition is not simply incorporated in his novels, but it's an issue and is viewed under the bias of irony and criticism.In his fictional writing, the fable linearity studied by Propp, Alain Dundes, and others is broken and the schemed construction of characters of the traditional tales is deviated in the process.As this work emphasizes, when it goes from the traditional to literary, there is a break of exemplary, which is one of the main characteristics of popular tales.Through the analyses of the chapters from two novels (Casa na Duna and Pequenos Burgueses), which connect the mythic, the anecdotal, and the enchantment, this work presents how these short narratives recover the oral character of the famous causos.The recovery of the tradition popular tales provides a gain of longevity in Carlos de Oliveira's novels, as his artistic competence is able to transform and update them, as well as grant them another future.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".