Tradició i modernitat en el llenguatge dels llibrets de falla de les primeres dècades del segle XX
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the first quarter of the 20th century, Valencian writers showed increasing interest in developing a correct orthographical and linguistic model, free from castilianisms, both for formal literature and for popular genres. Traditionally, researchers have insisted mostly on the orthographical influence from the Spanish language in the Fallas books. The researchers thought that even the authors of the Catalan formal literature, when writing the Fallas texts, adopted the Spanish orthographic model. With this work we find, however, that many writers of Fallas books, some engaged in other Valencian literary and cultural activities, were striving to use also in the Fallas books a correct language. The Fallas books, because of the popular character of the genre, are of great lexicographical interest for the study of colloquialisms, dialectalisms and neologisms linked to the social changes of the 20th century. Also, because traditionally they have not been taken into account by lexicographers, the Fallas books offer words and meanings not registered in the historical and etymological dictionaries.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".