MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393168732 · doi:10.7203/sphv.25.25597

Aquiles en el exilio. Lectura comparada del libro 9 de la Ilíada y el poema anglosajón “The Wanderer”

2024· article· es· W4393168732 on OpenAlexaff
Reyes Bertolín Cebrián

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia Philologica Valentina · 2024
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El presente trabajo ofrece una lectura complementaria del libro 9 de la Ilíada y del poema anglosajón “The Wanderer”. Está lectura se basa principalmente en que ambos protagonistas se describen a sí mismos como vagabundos, puesto que no tienen señor al que servir. El vocabulario del dolor mental o espiritual y las metáforas del clima para describir la turbulencia interior son otros puntos de contacto entre ambas obras. Además, destaca el hecho que durante la separación del grupo el protagonista puede expresar libremente sus sentimientos, mientras que la pertenencia al grupo puede implicar no verbalizarlos.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia Philologica ValentinaSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207