Bibliographic record
Abstract
A lo largo de los últimos sesenta años los críticos de Galdós han mantenido una discusión sobre cómo interpretar la novela Tormento. Por un lado, algunos estudiosos han sostenido que ésta narra la historia de una mujer perspicaz, seductora y egoísta que consigue hacerse de forma deshonesta con un marido riquísimo pero ingenuo. Por otro lado, hay estudiosos de la novela que han argumentado que su protagonista, Amparo Sánchez Calderón, es la víctima de una sociedad cruel e injusta que logra salvarse milagrosamente de un futuro empobrecido. Hasta la fecha y pese a la existencia de varias ediciones críticas de Tormento no se han mirado las pruebas de imprenta de la novela para determinar si ofrecen pruebas a favor o en contra de una interpretación u otra. Por lo tanto, en este trabajo se argumenta que los cambios que el propio autor incorporó a su texto a la hora de corregir las pruebas de imprenta demuestran de forma significativa que Galdós no veía en su protagonista a una mujer interesada e inmoral, sino todo lo contrario.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".