Una edición contrahecha de las Obras en prosa y verso de Jacinto Polo de Medina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uno de los fenómenos editoriales más persistentes en la imprenta española del siglo XVII es la existencia y circulación en el mercado de ediciones contrahechas o impresas sin licencias ni permisos de impresión de textos que tuvieron gran éxito en sus versiones originales. Jacinto Polo de Medina fue uno de esos escritores cuya obra fue tan bien recibida por el público que hubo de estamparse en muchas ocasiones durante casi todo el siglo. En 1630 ve la luz su primer libro Academias del Jardín, y a partir de entonces no dejan de publicarse sus textos: Ocios de la soledad, El buen humor de las musas, A Lelio gobierno moral, Bureo de las musas y honesto entretenimiento para el ocio, Hospital de incurables, Universidad de amor y escuelas de interés, Fábula de Apolo y Daphne, y Obras en prosa y en verso. De este último se ha localizado una edición contrahecha que se estudia y se describe con detalle en este artículo. | One of de most persistent editorial phenomenon in the spanish press during\nXVII\ncentury is the publishing and releasing of pirate,\ncontrafacta\neditions, or published texts without printing licenses or authorizations from books that were best sellers in their original version. Jacinto Polo de Medina was one of\nthose authors whose books were so good accepted for the public that was necessary to print them so\nmany times during the century.\nAcademias del Jardín\nwas his first book released in 1630. Since then\nhis texts were often printed:\nOcios de la soledad, El buen humor de las musas, A Lelio gobierno moral,\nBureo de las musas y honesto entretenimiento para el ocio, Hospital de incurables, Universidad de\namor y escuelas de interés, Fábula de Apolo y Daphne, y Obras en prosa y en verso.\nWe have found a\ncontrafacta\nedition of the last one, that is studied and described in this work.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".