El dialoguismo femenino en el Diálogo entre el Viejo, el Amor y la Mujer hermosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feminine dialogism in Dialogo entre el Viejo, el Amor y la Mujer hermosaThis article begins a literary dialogue between two specific works written at the end of the fifteenth century: Dialogo entre el Amor y un viejo by Rodrigo Cota and the anonymous Dialogo entre el Viejo, el Amor y la Mujer hermosa which lead to Celestina. Miola, who discovered, published and studied the anonymous Dialogo in 1886, was impressed by the depth of characterization. Later critics have compared these texts to Celestina in search of sources or biographical clues for Rojas’ text. In Celestina many lives crisscross whereas in Cota’s Dialogo, much like the medieval scholarly and clerical debates all written by men, there are but two voices. In the anonymous Dialogo, the third voice is that of the beautiful woman who, in her own voice and as a harbinger of literary change, speaks as an independent modern creation. Future work aims to determine how these women speak, what they say and whether their ideas differ from those expressed by male figures.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".