MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1582068847

Tropes of Sacrifice in Nigerian Drama

2014· article· en· W1582068847 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Taye Awoyemi, Omolara Kikelomo Owoeye

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterary Theory and Cultural Hermeneutics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSacrificeDramaHuman sacrificeAestheticsPossession (linguistics)IdeologySociologyLiteraturePhilosophyLawArtPolitical scienceTheologyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sacrifice as an integral part of the traditional people of Nigeria has been represented in Nigerian drama by different playwrights who have displayed diverse approaches, ideological stance and attitudes to the practice in their plays. The essay, through a study of selected Nigerian plays discovers that varied use of the term abound in Nigerian plays and that the obsolescent culture of ritual sacrifice of human beings has given way to self-sacrifice which may not necessarily include the termination of life. Self-sacrifice involves the giving up of one’s right, possession, benefit or even life and this is the trope that pervades the majority of modern Nigerian plays and may eventually replace human sacrifice which has gone out of public practice in real life. The treatment of these two modes of sacrifice is done in tandem with another two; the Christ sacrifice and animal sacrifice. The paper observes the issue of unwillingness on the part of the carriers as a major factor in the obliteration of human sacrifice and concludes that there is a already a shift in the focus of Nigerian writers on the issue of human sacrifice.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicLiterary Theory and Cultural HermeneuticsFrench-language works237,207