Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este art?culo estudia diferentes modelos de ejemplaridad en la literatura fant?s tica del barroco espa?ol, fos? Antonio Maravall ha destacado los aspectos mani puladores y propagandistas de la cultura del barroco, especialmente el manejo de resortes irracionalespara promover la aceptaci?n acr?tica de los valores morales y sociales que sustentan el sistema mon?rquico-se?orial. Sin duda, gran parte de los textos barrocos que podemos asociar con el mundo de lo fant?stico, incluyendo un buen n?mero de relaciones de sucesos, leyendas, cuentos y novelas, participan del impulso sensacionalista a que hacen referencia tanto Maravall como Henry Ettinghausen. Pero este no es el ?nico modo de empleo de lo fant?stico en el ba rroco. Las Novelas ejemplares de Cervantes, especialmente El casamiento en ga?oso y El coloquio de los perros representan un modelo alternativo de ejem plaridad en que lo fant?stico sirve para abrir perspectivas inauditas que revelan la problematicidad de valores y creencias dominantes en la Espa?a del siglo diecisiete.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".