Aproximación a los fundamentos teóricos y epistemológicos de la literatura comparada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper reviews the problem of the relationship between art and literature. First, the text considers the way this issue has been analyzed. Second, the essay proposes that ekphrasis supports studies of Comparative Literature. Finally, the text suggests the relationship between narration and description. Both are characteristics of the ekphrasis. The conclusion shows the necessity to think a perspective that integrates semiotic to hermeneutic in the study of the inter-artistic relationships. Resumen: Este artículo examina el problema de la relación entre arte y literatura. El texto, primero, revisa la manera en que ha sido abordada esta temática; segundo, propone que la ecfrasis soporta los estudios de la literatura comparada; y tercero, sugiere la relación entre narración y descripción como rasgos propios de la ecfrasis. La conclusión a la que se llega muestra la necesidad de pensar una perspectiva que integre la semiótica con la hermenéutica en el estudio de las relaciones interartísticas.
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 | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".