MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1549400226

Carol Shields and Simone de Beauvoir: Immanence, Transcendence, and Women’s Work in A Fairly Conventional Woman, The Stone Diaries , and Unless

2010· article· en· W1549400226 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Bethany Ruth Guenther

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Canadian Literature · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShort Stories in Global Literature
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmanenceTranscendence (philosophy)FeminismGender studiesPhilosophySociologyPsychoanalysisAestheticsEpistemologyPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many of the female protagonists in Carol Shields’s fiction are defined by the daily slog of their domestic work, ostensibly doomed to what Simone de Beauvoir famously called “immanence.”  However, Shields does not view women’s domestic work with the same terror as de Beauvoir. Shields equips the female protagonists in A Fairly Conventional Woman (1982), The Stone Diaries (1993), and Unless (2002) with some sort of artistic or creative work that allows them the “expansion of existence,” or transcendence, that de Beauvoir saw as only possible for men. Considering Shields’s fiction in light of de Beauvoir’s theories not only illuminates Shields’s own feminist philosophy but also situates her in the larger feminist community by demonstrating that she does indeed use a feminist approach to her recognition of women’s work as a potential (and necessary) source of transcendence.

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 score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.030
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Canadian LiteratureSame topicShort Stories in Global LiteratureFrench-language works237,207