MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7094440881

Infallible Texts and Righteous Interpretations: <em>Don Quijote</em> and Religious Fundamentalism

2005· article· W7094440881 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - Trinity University (Trinity University) · 2005
Typearticle
Language
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthodoxyScrutinyFaithSubject (documents)ScholarshipFellAnalogyTerminologyFundamentalism
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Religion in Don Quijote has been a frequent subject of inquiry over the past century. As a "vehicle for religious expression," to use Ziolkowski's terminology (1), Cervantes's masterpiece has been studied as an analogy of the relationship between religious faith and the world around it (Ziolkowski 8), as a manifestation of the historic clash between the secularization of the modern era and the waning medieval domination by "religious institutions and symbols" (Ziolkowski 9, citing Berger 107), as a vessel of both the spirit and the letter of selected pronouncements of the Council of Trent (Descouzis 479), as a text that fell under the scrutiny of the Inquisition (Castro, "Cervantes" 427; Boruchoff 40-49), proof of Cervantes's own religious orthodoxy or lack thereof (Spitzer 61; Castro, El pensamiento 240-320), and a study of the nature of belief and its relationship to truth: "truth is always a function of belief" (Forcione 109). Special attention, of course, has been paid to the scrutiny of Don Quijote's library by the priest, Pero Pérez, in Part 1, Chapter 5 (Eisenberg, Ziolkowski 28), Quijote's encounter with Ricote (Ramírez-Araujo, Boruchoff 53), and the more than 160 quotations from and allusions to passages from the Bible (Monroy 79-173), as well as "minor irreverences" and occasional jibes" seen throughout (Ziolkowski 27-28). This brief overview is, of course, only a taste of the scholarship available on the subject, but it will suffice here to establish the scope and breadth of previous discussion of religion in the Quijote.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.028
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.167 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - Trinity University (Trinity University)Same topicDiverse Scientific and Economic StudiesFrench-language works237,207