MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311495480 · doi:10.7203/celestinesca.46.24377

Sobre las zorras Celestina y Lozana: el simbolismo animal en la configuración del personaje de la puta alcahueta

2022· article· es· W4311495480 on OpenAlex
Irene López Rodríguez

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCelestinesca · 2022
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnimal Law and Welfare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La influencia indiscutible de La Celestina en La Lozana andaluza no se limita a su estructura, contenido y función (Botta 2002; Checa 2005; Imperiale 1991; Márquez Villanueva 2006), sino que abarca también el simbolismo animal empleado en la configuración del personaje de la puta alcahueta (Shipley 2020; López-Rodríguez 2018; Miaja de la Peña 2017; Snow 2021). Celestina y Lozana son melosas y laboriosas como las abejas, putas y maternales como las gallinas, locuaces y libres como las aves, tentadoras y pecaminosas cuales sierpes, libidinosas y obstinadas como las asnas e incluso mansas e indefensas como las ovejas. En efecto, existe una suerte de bestiario en la creación de las figuras de las proxenetas, cuyo físico y personalidad, vivienda, oficios, creencias y función social están marcados con rasgos animales. Aparte de recalcar el mundo instintivo animal del sexo con el que se ganan la vida estas dos rameras, la iconografía bestial sirve para esbozar la naturaleza polifacética de Celestina y Lozana. A fin de cuentas, su supervivencia, cual animal, depende de su adaptación al medio, porque, en palabras del personaje de Francisco Delicado, «¿Qué me tengo que mantener […] como camaleón?» (179).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.281 · 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