Teorías y enseñanza del idioma – Academia (1713). Polémica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 separador y 5 fichas que forman unidad. El separador lleva por título “Academia (1713). Polémica”. El vuelto repite información. El conjunto trata sobre el nacimiento de las academias e instituciones europeas dedicadas a la lengua. Se menciona la postura de Salazar y Castro contra la Academia española. Se recogen los reglamentadores del francés entre 1684-1720 en la Academia francesa. Las fuentes usadas son: Braunschvig, M. (1920): “Notre littérature étudiée dans les textes”, tomo I: “Des origines a la fin du XVIIe siècle”, - Brunot, F. (1909 y 1911): “Histoire de la langue française des origines à 1900”, tomo III: “La formation de la langue classique, (1600-1660)”, - Brunot, F. (1913 y 1924): “Histoire de la langue française des origines à 1900”, tomo IV: “La langue classique (1660-1715)”, - C. Muñoz y Manzano, Viñaza conde de la (1893): “Biblioteca histórica de la filología castellana”, - Cotarelo y Mori, E. (1914): «La fundación de la Academia Española y su primer director don Juan Manuel F. Pacheco, marqués de Villena», en “Boletín de la Real Academia Española”, I, pp. 89-127, - RAE (1726-1739): “Diccionario de Autoridades”, 6 tomos. La ficha 5 está escrita por el recto y por el vuelto
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".