Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we look at Henrik Ibsen’s Ghosts through a postmodernist window. In addition, a modest attempt has been made to analyze the theories of postmodernist literature in the play. In Ghosts there are both modern and postmodern characters as well as those oscillating between them. Using Derrida’s Deconstruction, religious ideas, dead beliefs and old traditions Ghosts can profit new looks from different angles. Sense of non-ending and sense of displacement are also spread all over the play. By the same token, fall of the grand-narratives, as an important postmodern element, is very tangible in the play. The importance of fall of the grand-narratives as a bump key, which opens the complicated locks of the play, persuades us to delve into Ghosts within postmodern bedrock. Key words: Ghosts ; Postmodernist literature; Grand narrative; Meta-narratives; Deconstruction; Binary oppositions Resume: Dans cette etude, nous examinons le fantome Henrik Ibsen a travers une fenetre du moderne. En outre, une modeste tentative a ete faite pour analyser les theories de la litterature de la post-moderne de la piece. Dans les fantomes, il ya deux personnages modernes et post-modernes, ainsi que ceux oscillant entre eux. En utilisant la deconstruction de Derrida, les idees religieuses, les croyances et les vieux fantomes morts traditionnel qui 1 peuvent etre tirer du profit de nouveaux looks a partir d'angles differents. Sens de la non-clos et le sens de deplacement sont egalement repartis sur tout le jouer. Par la meme occasion, chute de la grand-recits, comme un element important postmoderne, est tres tangibles dans la piece. L'importance de la chute des grands recits, comme une cle bosse, qui ouvre les serrures compliquees de la piece, nous persuade de se plonger dans Ghosts dans le substratum postmoderne. Mots cles: Les Fantomes ; La litterature post-moderne; Le grand recit; Les meta-recits; La Deconstruction; L’oppositions binaires
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".