La crítica a la astrología en la literatura de ficción de finales del siglo XVII
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El artículo se propone analizar el tratamiento reservado a la astrología en la producción novelística de finales del siglo XVII. En particular, se analizan los Engaños de mujeres y desengaños de los hombres (1698) de Miguel de Montreal, poniéndolos en relación con la coeva prosa de ideas, especialmente con El hombre práctico (1686) de Francisco Gutiérrez de los Ríos, conde de Fernán Núñez y con el discurso Astrología judiciaria y almanaques del primer tomo del Teatro crítico universal (1726) de Benito Jerónimo Feijoo. La finalidad es ilustrar cómo los argumentos adoptados por Montreal – incluso aquellos que tienen una procedencia clásica – se emplean en función de la nueva orientación epistemológica que se afirma entre finales del siglo XVII y principios del XVIII, en la que el valor de la experiencia y de los datos empíricos y verificables juegan un papel central.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".