MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1491633081

Margaret Atwood’s Surfacing as a Critique of the Enlightenment Reason

2011· article· en· W1491633081 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Hossein Pirnajmuddin, Omid Amani

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative Fiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnlightenmentRationalismIdeologyCivilizationPower (physics)EcofeminismAestheticsRationalityAge of EnlightenmentSociologyMetaphorPhilosophyEnvironmental ethicsEpistemologyPoliticsPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surfacing, a novel written by Margaret Atwood in 1972, portrays the domination of western civilization as a masculinist ideology over nature and woman in parallel. The novel is about the degeneration of the core ideas of the Enlightenment – rationalism and progress – into brute domination, colonization and the rift between nature and culture. This study attempts to demonstrate the centrality of this critique to the novel. Atwood scathingly criticizes the rampant consumerism and capitalism of the modern age embodied in the threat posed by American culture, or American mentality, to Canada and nature which runs parallel to the masculine rationality which wills to ‘submerge’ (as the central metaphor of ‘surfacing’ has it) the feminine and the natural. The paper also discusses a number of other related dualisms represented in the novel. Key words : Margaret Atwood; Surfacing; The Enlightenment; reason; ecofeminism; nature; power

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.019
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative FictionFrench-language works237,207