Marcos y marcas, dispositivos disciplinarios y transgresión: la textualidad fronteriza en El deseo del lápiz de Eduardo Lalo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este estudio examina El deseo del lápiz. Castigo, urbanismo, escritura de Eduardo Lalo (2010) para develar su impulso indócil y anti-consensual. Con este propósito, exploro, por un lado, los marcos y límites que el foto-texto de Lalo (re)presenta como estructuras de disciplinamiento que buscan contener; y, por el otro, la escritura, las marcas y la escritura-marca, como gestos de trasgresión y “expresión de incontinencia”. Sostengo que Lalo propone en El deseo del lápiz una estética de quiebres, descolocaciones, tensiones y herejías que resiste a la cultura de la obviedad, obligando a cruzar las fronteras de lo aceptado y acostumbrado y reorganizando las (in)visibilidades. Palabras clave: foto(textualidad), racionalidad disciplinaria, transgresión, (in)visibilidad, ensayo This study examines El deseo del lápiz. Castigo, urbanismo, escritura, by Eduardo Lalo (2010), in order to reveal its defiant and anti-consensual drive. With this purpose in mind, on one hand I explore frames and limits that are (re)presented in Lalo’s photo-text as disciplining and containing structures; and, on the other, writing, marks and writing-as-mark are interpreted as expressions of defiance and incontinence. I contend that Lalo proposes in El deseo del lápiz an aesthetic of fractures, dislocations, tensions, and heresy that resists a culture of the evident, compelling the reader to cross the boundaries of what is accepted and habitual, and reorganizing the order of the (in)visible. Keywords: photo(textuality), disciplinary rationality, transgression, (in)visibility, essay
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".