MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802332724 · doi:10.1515/sem-2016-0175

Borges, Pierre Menard, rhizomaticity, and the simulation of palimpsestic writing

2018· article· en· W2802332724 on OpenAlexaff
Fernando de Toro

Bibliographic record

VenueSemiotica · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicComparative Literary Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyLiteratureArt historyHistoryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote shares with Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius several central aspects in the construction of the text, fundamentally the doubling of writing: that of Borges and Pierre Menard, where both simulate to tell story that it never gets told; and the creation of a world that is generated from pure discursivity. The text is divided in two sections, as indicated by Borges himself: one is the visible work of Pierre Menard, and the other is inconclusive work (1962 [1956]: 48–55). The first part is a catalogue of Menard’s library and the second letters by Menard addressed to Borges. In what follows we will analyze the gesture of inscribing writing.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.021
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSemioticaSame topicComparative Literary Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207