Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter aims to explore the failed intercultural dialogue between Russian and Colombian literature, identifying the factors that contributed to its failure. While Russian literature had a considerable presence in Latin America, it aroused little interest among Colombian translators and writers until the last decades of the twentieth century. The lack of an adequate social environment, both formal and informal, resulting from the specificity of the Colombian cultural situation and the country’s unique relationship with Russia during the Cold War, was a major factor in this superficial reception of Russian literature in Colombia. However, the Soviet international educational project and generalized processes of globalization gradually increased direct engagement with Russian literature, including the number of translations. The chapter offers a first outline of the history of translation and reception of Russian literature in Colombia. It reviews the cultural situation in Colombia and analyzes examples of Russian literature’s reception in the twentieth century (Ramón Vinyes, Los Nuevos group, Luis Tejada, León de Greiff, and Gabriel García Márquez); it also summarizes the history of the Colombian-Soviet Cultural Institute, its publications and related cultural activities, and examines the work of Colombian translators of Russian literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".