Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apoy?ndose en la escuela alemana de historia de los conceptos, este art?culo describe algunas etapas de la historia del t?rmino barroco. A la vez, articula al gunos desaf?os del trabajo sobre el concepto: su estatus como noci?n hist?ri camente ex?gena, su circulaci?n interdisciplinaria, sus apropiaciones nacionales y regionales, las estrategias cognitivas a las cuales se presta, sus migraciones trans culturales, el programa est?tico que v?hicula y los usos ideol?gicos-pol?ticos a los cuales este programa puede dar lugar y, finalmente, sus inestabilidades axiol?gi cas combinadas con sus intermitencias hist?ricas. Considerando todo lo anterior, se trata de un concepto en el que tanto la configuraci?n como la trayectoria his t?ricas poseen una gran complejidad. M?s que desear reducir esta complejidad, reconoceremos en ella el signo de una notable eficiencia del barroco en la historia cultural que llega hasta nuestros d?as.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".