MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619515550 · doi:10.3968/9543

The Collective Memory in El Evangelio Según Marcos of J. L. Borges

2017· article· es· W2619515550 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ning Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2017
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBorges, Kipling, and Jewish Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollective memoryPerspective (graphical)Cultural memoryFocus (optics)SociologyCriticismGospelEpistemologyLiteraturePhilosophyAnthropologyComputer scienceArtTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cultural memory has become a focus in studies of sociology, anthropology, history, among the other disciplines. It also endows new perspective on the criticism of literature. The concept of collective memory, developed by the French sociology Maurice Halbwachs at the first of the twenty century, constitutes the fundamental notion in the investigation about the cultural memory. There exists a collective memory and social frameworks for the memory. The collective memory is the instruments used to reconstruct an image of the past which is in accord, in each epoch, with the predominant thoughts of the society. Jorge Luis Borges is publicly recognized as one of the most important writers of the Spanish-language literature. One of the characteristics of the Borge’s short stories is the constant and abundant references to other texts. In this paper, we pick the short story “ El Evangelio Seg Un Marcos (The Gospel According to Mark)” as a case to analyze the cultural collective memory in the text and it´s meanings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicBorges, Kipling, and Jewish IdentityFrench-language works237,207