Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ideological power in gender relations and its contradictions and conflicts are dealt with by different Western playwrights in different approaches. In Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, ideological elements are explored to reveal male misconception of women and causes that entail men’s power. By analyzing gender relations in the form of power struggle, various conflicts between the male and the female are exposed to indicate the intensiveness of the gender struggle in winning over their control. Though men manipulate their power in an open way, women demonstrate their ideological strength with their forceful challenge of masculine power in a more tactful way, and deconstruct the traditional myths of gender roles. Key words: gender struggle; ideological power; masculine power challenge Resume: Le pouvoir ideologique dans les relations de deux sexes, ses contradictions et ses conflits ont ete traites par de differents dramaturges europeens dans des approches differentes. Dans Maison de poupee d’Ibsen, les elements ideologiques ont ete epuises pour reveler les idees fausses masculines vis-a-vis des femmes et les raisons pour lesquelles le pourvoir revient toujours aux hommes. En faisant des analyses sur les relations des deux sexes en forme de lutte de pouvoir, des conflits varies entre les hommes et les femmes ont ete devoiles pour indiquer l’intensite de la lutte des sexes dans le but de gagner le controle. Bien que les hommes manipulent leur pouvoir ouvertement, les femmes demontrent leur force ideologique dans une facon plus adroite et deconstruient les mythes traditionnels sur les roles des deux sexes. Mots-Cles: lutte des sexes; pouvoir ideologique; pouvoir masculin, defi
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".