A todo o nada: El problema de la (in)autenticidad en Rayuela / All or nothing: The problem of (in)authenticity in Rayuela
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rayuela de Julio Cortázar ha sido interpretada como una denuncia de la inautenticidad por vías del absurdo. Sin embargo, dicha denuncia no es en sí misma condición suficiente de posibilidad de una existencia auténtica en un sentido ontológico-existencial estricto, esto es, un compromiso resuelto de cara a la finitud que por primera vez se revela en el ser-para-la-muerte pero que requiere de una proyección hacia posibilidades futuras a partir de la irreemplazabilidad de cada Dasein. En este sentido, los infortunios de Horacio Oliveira no son atribuibles a un impulso hedonista o una vida sin reglas, sino que están vinculados a su metodología errática y reduccionista. En la medida en que es posible considerar lo racional y lo irracional como dos caras de la misma moneda metafísica, la búsqueda escéptica “a todo o nada” de Oliveira puede ser entendida como una crítica al subjetivismo radical y al individualismo metodológico propiciados por la modernidad.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".