MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407171882 · doi:10.7203/celestinesca.39.20182

Casa, torre, árbol, muro: hacia una morfología del escenario urbano en las ediciones antiguas de <i>Celestina</i>

2015· article· es· W2407171882 on OpenAlexaff
Raúl Álvarez Moreno

Bibliographic record

VenueCelestinesca · 2015
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval and Early Modern Iberia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este artículo propone un examen morfológico de los escenarios urbanos y arquitectónicos en los grabados de las primeras ediciones españolas de Celestina (Burgos 1499, Sevilla 1502 / c. 1518, Valencia 1514), en contraste con los de la traducción alemana de Augsburgo (1520). Tras considerar posibles modelos alemanes, se amplía potencialmente la influencia a modelos no procedentes de ediciones teatrales. Asimismo, se exponen patrones urbanos que en términos formales las fuentes alemanas de los grabados españoles pudieron utilizar. Entre ellos estarían la escenografía visualizada desde los propios textos dramáticos, la pintura de la época, la tradición pictórica del manuscrito, la tradición gótica del dibujo arquitectónico y, especialmente, las vistas de ciudades de los difundidos libros de viajes y crónicas. Por distintos motivos, incluidos los artísticos, el estado evolutivo de estas fuentes y, por tanto, de las ediciones españolas, correspondería a una fórmula de representación espacial y arquitectónica pre-renacentista. Ello lo confirma el análisis contrastivo de sus componentes morfológicos con los de los grabados de Hans Weideitz de la edición alemana, ya en transición hacia un mundo post-Burgkmair y Durero.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCelestinescaSame topicMedieval and Early Modern IberiaFrench-language works237,207