MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2391127495 · doi:10.19130/iifl.ap.2016.1.663

Apostillas a un diálogo (entreoído) sobre la locura en el Quijote de 1615

2016· article· es· W2391127495 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Poética · 2016
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEarly Modern Spanish Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRationalityIdentification (biology)Quarter (Canadian coin)ArtLogo (programming language)HumanitiesPhilosophyHistoryEpistemologyComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A quarter of century ago, Maurice Molho and Margit Frenk talked in person about don Quixote’s madness in the Second part of Cervantes’ novel. In the present article I reconstruct this dialogue from the subsequent publications that both hispanists dedicated to the topic. After describing their studies, I identify possible mutual influences, correspondences and divergences between them. Finally, I try to harmonize their findings through a personal analysis which states: a) The protagonist dies insane —as Frenk suggests—, but with a different kind of madness; and b) It is not the character —as Mohlo proposes— but the book instead which gains access to the pre-Cartesian rationality. Both proposals converge in the identification of the implicit reader: the well-known gullible reader of knightly fiction, and at the same time the gullible believer.

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)0.000
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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · 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