MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2733644682 · doi:10.18192/rceh.v41i1.2039

Dar la palabra al texto de La vida de Lazarillo de Tormes

2016· article· es· W2733644682 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Canadiense de Estudios Hispánicos · 2016
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEarly Modern Spanish Literature
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El texto de La vida de Lazarillo de Tormes, y de sus fortunas y adversidadeslleva al lector a hacerse una serie de preguntas que aparentemente no tienenrespuesta: ¿por qué cambia de interlocutor el escritor en el último párrafodel prólogo?, ¿quién es ese “vuestra merced” del que nada se nos dice, y dequé “caso” quiere que le informen?, ¿por qué acaba su relato Lázaro trascontar la conversación que tuvo con el arcipreste de San Salvador y no conun hecho esencial de su vida? Solo una lectura atentísima del propio texto yuna cadena de deducciones lógicas permiten contestarlas y devolver elsentido a la obra, que nos ha llegado a nosotros sin el “argumento”, queofrecía la clave de lectura. Así también se entiende la persecucióninquisitorial, que siempre incluyó el texto en el índice de libros prohibidos. ElLazarillo es una aguda sátira erasmista contra miembros corruptos de laIglesia, necesitada de reforma; y no fue escrito hacia 1550, sino veinte añosantes, como indican las fechas históricas que enmarcan el relato: hay que darla palabra al propio texto.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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