MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735582623 · doi:10.18192/rceh.v41i1.2045

Abriendo caminos poéticos: de Boscán y Garcilaso en sus Obras (1543) a Wordsworth y Coleridge en las Lyrical Ballads (1798)

2016· article· es· W2735582623 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Francisco Javier Maza Ávila

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Canadiense de Estudios Hispánicos · 2016
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Literary Analyses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtBalladPoetryLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El objetivo de este artículo es analizar comparativamente dos textosincluidos en sendas obras poéticas de enorme transcendencia en susrespectivos ámbitos literarios: por un lado la “Carta a la Duquesa de Soma”,donde Boscán presenta la nueva poesía renacentista que quiere abrirse pasoen la España del siglo XVI, texto que puede leerse en las Obras (Barcelona,1543) que reúnen poemas del propio Boscán y de Garcilaso de la Vega; porotro, el “Advertisement” o “Advertencia” que Wordsworth sitúa al frente delas Lyrical Ballads (Bristol y Londres, 1798), con poemas de Wordsworth yColeridge, y que constituye el primer hito del Romanticismo en lenguainglesa. En la “Carta” de Boscán y la “Advertencia” de Wordsworthconsideraremos cuestiones como la configuración de la lengua poética en susrelaciones con la coloquial, la noción de poesía y sus límites, o la dinámicaentre el acercamiento a los modelos literarios previos y la creatividadindividual. Más allá de las dos épocas implicadas, asociaremos lasreflexiones, actitudes y dificultades expuestas por el poeta catalán y el ingléscon las que pueden surgir en el siglo XXI cuando nuevas tendencias literariasintentan consolidarse frente al canon establecido.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Canadiense de Estudios HispánicosSame topicHistorical and Literary AnalysesFrench-language works237,207