Pesquisas documentales para narrar la historia de San Isidro: Gestiones para una canonización iniciada en 1562
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolLa Historia del proceso de canonizacion de San Isidro ha llegado hasta nuestros dias un tanto desfigurada. Ese proceso comenzo de forma oficial en el ano 1562, y no en 1593 como cuenta la historiografia. Tambien reina la confusion en torno a quien fue el artifice de su canonizacion. No se trato de uno, sino de varios promotores, como se aclara en este articulo. Entre las acciones dadas para defender esa canonizacion, fue fundamental la produccion narrativa sobre la vida y milagros de San Isidro. Sirvio para reconstruir una nueva realidad sobre un pasado difuso y lejano que, ademas de basarse en la tradicion oral, se remontaba a los siglos X y XI. Algunos autores tambien consultaron los archivos del concejo madrileno para documentarse sobre el santo Labrador. Dicho tema, mas legendario que real, fue paradojicamente el unico sobre el que se investigo en los archivos municipales con el fin historiar en tiempos de Felipe II. EnglishDocumental Investigations to Narrate the History of San Isidoro. Procedure for the Canonization Begun in 1562 The history of the canonization process of San Isidro has reached us in somewhat disfigured version. The process began formally in 1562 and not in 1593 as the official historiography would have it. There is also some confusion as to who instigated the canonization. In fact, there were a number of instigators, as I make clear in this article. Among the actions taken to defend the canonization, was the creation of a narrative version of Isidro�s life and miracles. This served to reconstruct a new reality from the vague details of a life that took place in the eleventh century and was based on oral history. Some authors also consulted the Madrid municipal archives for information on the saint. This subject, more legendary than real, was paradoxically the only historical subject investigated in the municipal archives in the period of Philip II.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".