MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887191032

Lo popular en el teatro de Miguel Hernández

2015· article· es· W2887191032 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Francisco Gutiérrez Carbajo

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia Iberica et Americana: journal of Iberian and Latin American literary and cultural studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEarly Modern Spanish Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

espanolLas relaciones entre la literatura popular y la culta son muy frecuentes en la historia literaria, como lo demuestran los ejemplos de Juan de Mena, Lope de Vega, Luis de Gongora, Gustavo Adolfo Becquer, Juan Ramon Jimenez..., y los trabajos teoricos de Mila y Fontanals, Benedetto Croce, Juan Valera, Menendez Pelayo, Menendez Pidal, etc. Con estos presupuestos, y atendiendo a los aspectos formales y expresivos, se analizan los elementos populares en las obras teatrales Quien te ha visto y quien te ve y sombra de lo que eras , El torero mas valiente , Los hijos de la piedra , El labrador de mas aire y Pastor de la muerte de Miguel Hernandez. EnglishRelations between popular and serious literature are very common in literary history, as evidenced by the examples of Juan de Mena, Lope de Vega, Luis de Gongora, Gustavo Adolfo Becquer, Juan Ramon Jimenez... and theoretical works of Mila and Fontanals, Benedetto Croce, Juan Valera, Menendez Pelayo, Menendez Pidal, etc. With these assumptions, and taking into account the formal and expressive aspects, popular elements are analyzed in the plays Quien te ha visto y quien te ve y sombra de lo que has sido El torero mas valiente , Los hijos de la piedra , El labrador de mas aire and Pastor de la muerte by Miguel Hernandez.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia Iberica et Americana: journal of Iberian and Latin American literary and cultural studiesSame topicEarly Modern Spanish LiteratureFrench-language works237,207