MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1499186304

The Narrative Shaping of Meaning in Gail Godwin's A Southern Family: Why Fiction?

2013· article· en· W1499186304 on OpenAlex
Elaine Lux

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNarrative Works · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicNarrative Theory and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeNarrativityMeaning (existential)Context (archaeology)Narrative psychologyLiteratureNarrative inquiryNarratologyAestheticsNarrative criticismArtSociologyHistoryPhilosophyEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In her novel A Southern Family (1987), Gail Godwin fictionalized a real-life incident concerning a suicide-murder in her family. Interweaving narrative theory and literary analysis, this paper asks “why fiction?” for the telling of this story. In the context of narrative’s capacity to “make present” our experiences (Schiff, 2012, p.36), the paper explores some of the ways in which Godwin makes this fictional work an effective narrative tool for shaping meaning, and it suggests that the novel’s narrativity transforms this traumatic background story into both a work of art and a form of “story repair” (Howard, 1991, p. 149).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.207 · 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