Reseña del libro de Pedro Ruiz Pérez y Víctor Infantes, Dos obras de la primera literatura áurea: Cartas y coplas para requerir nuevos amores y Cómo un rústico labrador astucioso con consejo de su mujer engañó a unos mercaderes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
XVI llegan hasta nuestros días dos pliegos de diferente registro, enmarcados dentro de la literatura áurea española y editados por los catedráticos Pedro Ruiz y Víctor Infantes, de la Universidad de Córdoba y la Complutense de Madrid respectivamente, que ponen sus conocimientos y atenciones al servicio del lector en esta deliciosa obra.En una breve introducción encontramos, a modo de justificación de la obra, la importancia de los pliegos estudiados y el perfil de los propios autores, que han compartido de forma paralela una dilatada trayectoria docente e investigadora a la par que una amistad y camaradería que vemos refrendada en unas dedicatorias mutuas que cuentan más de lo que dicen.Los pliegos sueltos o coplas, cuadernos, cuadernillos, relaciones, papeles, historias, sucesos, opúsculos, librillos, piezas, hojas y un largo etcétera (todos estos y más eran los nombres que les atribuían autores e impresores coetáneos como Góngora, Lope de Vega o Miguel de Eguía) tienen una difícil definición y, por ello, una complicada categorización.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".