De la maravilla-ficción de fantasÃa al surrealismo fantástico: una nueva genologÃa â ilustrada en la narrativa mexicana, 1900-1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
My research deals with fantasy and the fantastic as genres, as well as with their subgenres. I propose a new genology for fantasy and fantastic literature and their subgenres in which they are part of a continuum, with fantasy standing on one end and mimetic literature standing on the other, the fantastic being their middle ground. Within this continuum, the subgenres – which I call fantasy marvel-fiction and fantastic marvel-fiction, fantasy science-fiction and fantastic science-fiction, fantasy surrealism and fantastic surrealism – are distinguished among themselves according to two axes, namely: a) the inner coherence or incoherence of the world the text presents – their being subjected or not to the laws of that world –; b) the nature, and the appropriate explanation – marvelous or scientific –, of the phenomenon that breaks the natural laws of the reader’s known real world. This relationship between reality and fantasy has been essential to my investigation. More specifically, what I have named “the scientific urban gaze” of reality has been the touch-stone to establish what is fantasy and what is not and to create the consequent genology. The genology I propose must therefore be pragmatic: the reader’s view of reality must be taken into account in the process of placing a text within this continuum and the proper genre and subgenre. Once the genology is fully explained, I compare it to the work of some of the most prominent critics on the field of fantasy and the fantastic in order to see similitudes and differences between their research and mine. For the validity of my genology to be demonstrated, I apply it in the analysis of some Mexican narrative works and show how the genre and subgenre of a text – in interaction with the text’s archetypes and narrative components – can be an effective means to convey ideology or worldview. The genological approach, therefore, integrated with an archetypal and a narratological one, constitutes an efficient tool for a holistic semiotic analysis. Notwithstanding that in my thesis I apply it to literary works, it can also be applied to cinema and theatre.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".