MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the Narrating Techniques and Their Artistic Effect in Beloved

2010· article· en· W1828009727 on OpenAlex
Xiu-mei Long

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

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicNarrative Theory and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanitiesNarrativeNarrative structureTheme (computing)FocalizationArt historyLiteratureComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the point of view of narrating techniques, this thesis attempts to analyze how the double structure and the multiple internal focalizations employed in the novel attribute to the novel’s aesthetic effect and the recreation of the theme on the readers’ side. Key words: Beloved,Double Structure,Multiple Internal Focalization,Aesthetic Effect Resume Cet article va analyser,sous l’angle de la technique narrative,les effets artistiques de la double structure et du procede narratif de multi-endofocalisation et leur role de guider le lecteur dans la recreation du theme dans la roman Favori de l’ecrivaine noire americaine Toni Morrison. Mots cles: Favori,la double structure,la multi-endofocalisation,les effets artistiques 摘 要 本文擬從敍事技巧的角度出發去分析美國黑人女作家托尼 •莫里森的長篇小說《寵兒》文本中表層和 深層雙重結構以及多重式內聚焦的敍述手法的藝術效果,尤其是對引導讀者對作品主題進行再創造的作用。 關鍵詞:《寵兒》;雙重結構;多重式內聚焦;藝術效果

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.276 · 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