El desengaño de Wendy: análisis comparado de tres versiones fílmicas de "Peter Pan"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The story of Peter Pan has known many versions and adaptations since James Matthew Barrie (1860-1937) wrote it at the beginning of the 20th century. In the last years, there is a renewed interest in the study of the intrinsic plurality of this fictional constellation that has in its center a child that does not grow. This article focuses on the three film adaptations of the story that remain closer to the original plot, as it was shaped by Barrie in the play "Peter Pan or The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up" (1904) and in the novel "Peter and Wendy" (1911): the one directed by Herbert Brenon (1924), the animated movie produced by Disney (1953) and the version by P.J. Hogan (2003). The analysis centers on the way each of these adaptations deals with a specific part of the story -when Wendy gets disappointed about Peter's feelings towards her- and how they relate it with Wendy's following decision of returning to London. This microanalysis allows to highlight some interesting differences between the versions, which reveal the underlying intentionalities.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".