Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este ensayo pretende evaluar la ola reciente de estudios gongorinos surgida al calor del cuarto centenario de las obras mayores del poeta. Al ofrecer una perspectiva general de este “boom”, quiero asimismo definir y analizar tres áreas de producción crítica. Me centro primero en el nuevo libro sobre las Soledades de Mercedes Blanco, una obra cuyas controvertidas e importantes contribuciones se valorarán en el contexto de la bibliografía existente sobre el poema. Reviso después algunas intervenciones críticas recientes sobre el Panegírico al duque de Lerma, con especial atención a una notable tesis doctoral española y al concepto de “inacabamiento estratégico” de John Beverley, objeto ahora de renovado interés. Examino también las cuestiones de eros y alteridad con el fin de encuadrar otro grupo de trabajos. Finalmente, desarrollo algunas observaciones sobre la tensión metodológica entre el nuevo historicismo y el marxismo - evidente en el contraste entre Beverley y Blanco - y entre las diferentes academias nacionales, divididas entre la filología y la crítica basada en la teoría contemporánea.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".