Bibliographic record
Abstract
El artículo discute la hasta ahora inadvertida relación entre Don Quijote de la Mancha de Miguel de Cervantes con la vida y obra del novelista español Francisco Umbral. A pesar de haber escrito una numerosa cantidad de textos sobre autores canónicos de la literatura española, Umbral prestó escasa atención a Cervantes. El propósito del artículo es establecer las escasas pero significativas afinidades que Umbral expresó hacia la figura de Cervantes y el protagonista de su novela. Para evidenciar este complejo vínculo, el artículo compara, en primer lugar, el personaje de Alonso Quijano con Umbral mismo en tanto figura pública. En ambos casos existe una negociación entre la realidad y la ficción, que nos conduce a problematizar el concepto de “mito” como paradigma del individualismo moderno según Ian Watt. La segunda parte del artículo examina las metáforas históricas que Umbral descubre en su lectura de Don Quijote. Finalmente, la tercera parte reflexiona en torno a las similitudes entre Quijano y Umbral como héroes y polemistas. Las conclusiones apuntan a que la interpretación de Umbral es sintomática de una perspectiva compartida por los escritores españoles a finales del siglo XX sobre la novela de Miguel de Cervantes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; 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".