Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este ensayo propone delinear un concepto de ciencia ficción barroca,partiendo del pensamiento de Luis de Molina, Bruno Latour y WilliamEgginton. La idea principal es enseñar cómo estos pensadores de latemprana y tardía modernidad privilegian la realidad de las acciones yelecciones discursivas de actores concretos con el fin de contrarrestar lasmaneras en que la física moderna y la metafísica escolástica erigen unadistinción entre el conocimiento científico y una realidad estable, peroinaccesible, a la cual se dirige y se refiere el conocimiento científico. Demanera similar, el desafío que presenta Cervantes gira en torno al hecho deque no haya ningún terreno epistemológico u ontológico exterior a su ficciónen donde se pueda juzgar con certeza los mundos y performances expuestosen las dos últimas piezas de las Novelas ejemplares, “El casamientoengañoso” y “El coloquio de los perros”. Al contrario, encontramos diversasperspectivas o aspectos según los cuales se ve y se mide la falta que subyace ymotiva toda la acción y su expresión y exposición. Latour llama estosaspectos modos (“modes”), cada uno de los cuales se define como unapostura en vez de un paradigma epistemológico.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".