Naturaleza y función de la literatura en la poética explícita de Carlos Pujol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Para contribuir a la comprensión del pensamiento literario del poeta, novelista, crítico y traductor Carlos Pujol (1936-2012) se examinan tres fuentes primarias de su poética, donde de forma explícita —aunque dispersa y fragmentada— aborda cuestiones de fundamento: ¿qué es la literatura? ¿Cuál es su función? El análisis de sus aforismos, entrevistas y correspondencia permite reconstruir un sistema orgánico de pensamiento en el cual proponemos distinguir dos funciones complementarias de la literatura, que concibe como arte y como diversión inteligente que permite ver más allá de la apariencia. Aunque su obra es coetánea a la generación del 70 defiende, como otros autores, planteamientos alternativos al de los llamados novísimos.In order to contribute to the understanding of the literary thought of the poet, novelist, critic and translator Carlos Pujol (1936-2012), we analise three primary sources of his poetics where he explicitly formulates his literary ideas —though scattered and fragmented— responding to fundamental questions such as, What is literature? What is its function? The analysis of his aphorisms, of interviews and correspondence allows us to reconstruct an organic system of thought where there are two complementary functions of literature, viewed both as art and as intelligent fun, allowing us to see beyond appearances. Even if his work is coetaneous with the generation of the 70’s he adopts, like other authors, an approach different from that of the so-called novísimos.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".