Un palimpsesto indeseado en la obra literaria de Juan benet: Julio Cortázar y sus minúsculas pedanterías.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Se estudia la influencia de Julio Cortázar en Juan Benet, partiendo de las entrevistas hechas a este último. Este lo criticó con virulencia y superficialmente pero, tras un estudio comparativo de sus respectivas obras literarias, se han advertido una serie de concomitancias entre ellos. Ambos relativizaron y descentraron los conceptos de realidad, de lógica y de tiempo y sus instrumentales epistemológicos, narratológicos o lingüísticos. Lo hicieron para elevar el nivel intelectual de los lectores y para así poder penetrar más en lo irracional, espacio de una razón «ultraperceptible» útil para nuestra evolución. I study Julio Cortázar´s influence in Juan Benet, based on the interviews made to the latter. He criticized him with virulence and superficially but, after a comparative study of their respective literary works, I found some similarities between both of them. they minimized and decentered the concepts of reality, logic and time as much as they did it with their epistemological, narratological or linguistic tools. they did that in order to raise the intellectual level of the readers and so as to penetrate more in the irrational, the space of a reason beyond perception and useful for our evolution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".