El “efecto Piranesi” de Thomas De Quincey como procedimiento ficcional en Borges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The “Piranesi effect” is a special literary effect created in the first quarter of the Nineteenth Century to connect the representation of the human mind to the experience of the infinite in the context of the popularization of Romanticism in the new media of the 1820s, and as an instantiation of the aesthetic of the sublime. The invention took place in a fragment from Thomas De Quincey’s Confessions of an English Opium-Eater (1821), presenting a plate after the manner of Giovanni Battista Piranesi’s Carceri d’Invenzione that shows Piranesi himself as a delirious hero of his own architectonic imagination. The term “Piranesi effect” was coined in 1963, after this very same passage, by the Northamerican critic Hillis Miller as the name of a general device-experience in De Quincey’s work. More than a hundred years after De Quincey invented the effect, and twenty before Miller named it, Jorge Luis Borges introduced the Piranesi effect as a technique in his experiments in fiction of the 1940s in Argentina. For Borges, this romantic effect acquired the role of a literary weapon in the context of World War II. In this article we retrace relevant moments of this history in order to project some light on the singular scene of importation implied in the Borgesian appropiation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".