Las anotaciones gramaticales del Em. 60 RAH: revisión crítica y aportaciones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La presente contribución viene a sumarse a una reducida lista de trabajos sobre las anotaciones gramaticales del códice Em. 60 de la RAH, con el convencimiento de que este conjunto de notas resulta esencial para la comprensión cabal de la problemática de las Glosas. En concreto, el objetivo de este artículo es reflejar una revisión crítica sobre algunos de los aspectos caracterizadores de estos textos particulares, al hilo de las diferentes posturas de los estudiosos, aportando, en su caso, hipótesis que expliquen y justifiquen su presencia en el manuscrito. El trabajo se vertebra en los apartados siguientes: 1) examen de las denominaciones propuestas por los principales especialistas a los diferentes tipos de anotaciones gramaticales; 2) descripción tipológica de las anotaciones en relación con sus características formales; 3) acercamiento a la problemática sobre la función de las anotaciones gramaticales, en el marco general de las glosas emilianenses; y 4) propuesta personal de una tipología de las anotaciones gramaticales.
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 | 0.016 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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".