Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artigo, seguindo a linha dos estudos de literatura comparada, propõe-se a discutir o diálogo intertextual que o escritor brasileiro Haroldo de Campos estabeleceu com o autor argentino Néstor Perlongher e o cubano Severo Sarduy. Para isso, realiza-se uma reflexão sobre o uso recorrente da tipologia do “poema-tombeau” dentro da produção poética haroldiana, a fim de investigar sua relação com a questão da morte e da alegoria, bem como a produtividade das noções de herança, tributo e homenagem, nos estudos de lírica moderna e contemporânea. Esta pesquisa preliminar pretende trazer à baila algumas questões pertinentes para se repensar o desenvolvimento da estética neobarroca, no contexto amplo da América Latina, a partir justamente dos cruzamentos interculturais motivados por interessantes dimensões que as “políticas da amizade” são capazes de alcançar na atualidade, propiciando intercâmbios entre poetas de diferentes procedências e inter-relacionando distintas estratégias formais e problemáticas sócio-históricas em pauta, sobretudo, no cenário das últimas décadas.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".