Bibliographic record
Abstract
A partir de la etimología del verbo “andar” y de su familia léxica, se desarrolla una reflexión acerca del español y de las situaciones de contacto que se han creado a lo largo de la historia (desde el siglo XV hasta la actualidad) por cuestiones coloniales o migratorias. A continuación, se presentan los ensayos que componen las tres secciones de la revista −“América del Norte: Estados Unidos y Canadá”, “México y Centroamérica” y “América del Sur”− y se formulan unas consideraciones finales acerca del papel de la lengua en el proceso de formación de la identidad.\nA scaffold for SpanishFrom the etymology of the verb andar and its lexical family, we make a reflection on Spanish and the situations of contact that have been created throughout history (from the XV century to the present) because of colonial or migratory issues. Then we present essays that compose the three sections of the magazine −“North America: United States and Canada”, “Mexico and Central America” –and “South America”− and we make final considerations about the role of language in the process of identity formation.\nUn’impalcatura per lo spagnoloPartendo dall’etimologia del verbo “andar” e dalla sua famiglia lessicale, si fa una riflessione sullo spagnolo e sulle diverse situazione di contatto createsi nel corso della storia (dal XV secolo fino ai giorni nostri) sia per ragioni coloniali che migratorie. Di seguito, vengono presentati i saggi che compongono le tre sezioni della rivista − “América del Norte: Estados Unidos y Canadá”, “México y Centroamérica” y “América del Sur” – e vengono formulate delle considerazioni finali sul ruolo della lingua nel processo di formazione identitaria.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".