MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235688569 · doi:10.19130/iifl.ap.2015.2.464

Don Quijote y Sancho Panza: duelo hiperbólico

2015· article· es· W4235688569 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
María Stoopen

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Poética · 2015
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEarly Modern Spanish Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mientras don Quijote queda en Sierra Morena haciendo penitencia de amor porDulcinea, Sancho Panza se encamina al Toboso a entregar a la amada una cartadel caballero (Quijote I, 25). El escudero conoce ya la verdadera identidad dela señora que inspira los actos de su amo, “la moza labradora” Aldonza Lorenzo.El hecho de que Sancho no llegue al Toboso, y en consecuencia no vea nuncaa la doncella ni le entregue ninguna carta, suscita en la descripción posteriorque hace a su amo una serie de invenciones degradantes sobre la identidad dela joven construidas por el labrador a partir del imaginario rural. Se estableceasí un duelo hiperbólico de doble signo en donde don Quijote se ve forzadoa adaptar las imágenes con que Sancho describe a Aldonza-Dulcinea, que nocorresponden al ideal amoroso con que concibe a su amada (Quijote I, 30-31).Haré aquí un análisis de los recursos persuasivos que cada protagonista utilizay del choque semántico que se establece a partir de los códigos de referencia deuno y otro. Asimismo, consideraré las consecuencias de estos episodios en larelación entre amo y escudero y la degradación creciente que sufre la imagende la amada del caballero, gracias al poder discursivo de Sancho Panza

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa PoéticaSame topicEarly Modern Spanish LiteratureFrench-language works237,207