Bibliographic record
Abstract
años de soledad?Why you should read and re-read onE HundrEd YEars of soLitudE Augusto Escobar Mesa A propósito de los cuarenta años del Premio Nobel de Literatura para su autor, hoy volvemos a preguntarnos: ¿qué tiene Cien años de soledad que ha logrado franquear todas las fronteras, ser leída y gustada por personas de los más diversos orígenes étnicos, religiosos, ideológicos, económicos, culturales, y sigue divirtiendo y fascinando a los lectores?Miles de ensayos se han escrito y se siguen escribiendo sobre esa novela que continúa suscitando nuevas preguntas, motivaciones, expectativas.Estudiosos de la literatura y de la política, pasando por antropólogos, sociólogos, psicólogos, filósofos, historiadores de las mentalidades, expertos dedicados a la religión, a la economía, a la ética, a la estética, a la ecología, etc., se han interesado por el imaginador de Macondo para mostrar cómo en la novela se recrea un complejo universo puesto al descubierto en toda su desnudez.Cien años de soledad es, en fin, el derecho y el revés de la condición humana.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".