Unión de palabras en documentos novohispanos del siglo XVI: ¿influencias orales o tradiciones escriturales? = Union of words in novo-hispanic documents of 16th century: Oral influences or writing traditions?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mediante los resultados del análisis de 20 documentos del siglo XVI, este artículo muestra que la unión y separación de palabras en la escritura no sólo se debe a los tipos de letra utilizados en su época, sino a marcadas influencias lingüísticas, principalmente fonológicas. Proponemos aquí que en la escritura del español novohispano convergieron por igual motivaciones lingüísticas como extralingüísticas. Through the results of the analysis of 20 documents of 16th Century, this article shows that union and separation of words is not only due to the kind of writing used in that time, but due to remarkable linguistics influences, phonological ones mainly. We propose that in writing in Spanish from that age linguistic and extra linguistic influences converged.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it