Las dos partes del Lazarillo y su autor, Francisco de Enzinas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyse 25 complex indexes (syntagms or lexical sequences) common to both parts of the Lazarillo, and other 15 indexes belonging to the first part or the continuation or Second Part. We verify their use in four authors proposed for the authorship of the Lazarillo: Hurtado de Mendoza, Alfonso de Valdés, Francisco de Enzinas, and Doctor Villalobos, and conclude that, in accordance to the results of the analysis, both parts belong to one author, and that author to be Francisco de Enzinas. The text used for Enzinas’ scrutiny is his (very free) translation of the first part of Lucian’s True Stories, printed in 1551 by Augustin Fries (Frisius) in Strasbourg.; Analizamos 25 índices complejos (sintagmas o secuencias lexicales) comunes a ambas partes del Lazarillo y otros 15 índices propios de la primera parte o de la continuación o Segunda parte. Verificamos su uso en cuatro autores propuestos para esta atribución: Hurtado de Mendoza, Alfonso de Valdés, Francisco de Enzinas y el Doctor Villalobos y concluimos que, conforme a los resultados del análisis, ambas partes son obra del mismo autor y ese autor es Francisco de Enzinas. El texto usado para el escrutinio en Enzinas es su traducción (muy libre) de la primera parte de la Historia verdadera de Luciano, impresa en 1551 por Augustin Fries (Frisius) en Estrasburgo.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".