MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1818805863

Salish Women versus Women in the New Testament

2012· article· en· W1818805863 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Raposo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of historical studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMormonism, Religion, and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepictionNew TestamentOld TestamentCreaturesRepresentation (politics)ClubIndigenousStyle (visual arts)Gender studiesEmpowermentFeminization (sociology)HistorySociologyLiteratureArtPolitical scienceNatural (archaeology)LawPoliticsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through a series of short stories, Lee Maracle presents women as strong, empowered, resilient, sexual, and at times, mischievous creatures. The positive representations of Canadian Indigenous women in First Wives Club contrast the mostly negative or violent depictions of women in the New Testament. Though the New Testament contains some examples of active, well-respected women who are strong and faithful, more often, the New Testament ignores the presence of women and their perspectives and frequently suggests that women are inferior and subordinate to men. In this paper, I will argue that in her short stories, Maracle’s representations of women as strong, powerful, and necessary beings is directly opposed to the depiction of women in the New Testament. Unlike the message of the New Testament, Maracle's representation of female characters in First Wives Club: Coast Salish Style serves to show the reader that female empowerment is not only acceptable, but necessary in society.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.017
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of historical studiesSame topicMormonism, Religion, and HistoryFrench-language works237,207