Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente trabalho retoma a leitura comparativa realizada durante o “Ciclo de cinema canadense”, promovido pelo Núcleo de Estudos Canadenses/Fundação Universidade Federal do Rio Grande — NEC/ FURG, entre o romance The Handmaid’s Tale (1985), de Margaret Atwood, e sua adaptação para o cinema, por Harold Pinter (1990). Entre as inúmeras interfaces existentes nesses dois campos culturais, saliento os valores que a autora tematiza na sua República de Gilead, a partir do fato de que a maioria das mulheres se tornaram estéreis. As atitudes do “comando” contra o estatuto dos direitos da mulher informam a visão distópica de Atwood. Na passagem do texto literário para a tela, entretanto, há aspectos relevantes, caracterizadores dessa distopia, que são totalmente desconsiderados. Nessa perspectiva, examino a influencia da narrativa encaixada na sua relação com a narradora e a presença do espaço canadense, elementos essenciais na obra literária, em contraponto ao “final feliz” da versão para o cinema.Abstract: This work recovers the comparative reading between the novel The Handmaids Tale (1985), by Margaret Atwood, and its adaptation to the movies by Harold Pinter (1990), presented in the ‘Ciclo de Literatura Canadense’ sponsored by the Núcleo de Estudos Canadenses/Fundação Universidade Federal do Rio Grande — NEC/FURG. Among the various interfaces in these two cultural fields, I underline the values that the writer thematizes in her Republic of Gilead. Such values spring from the fact that most of the women have become sterile. The command’s attitudes against the statute of women’s rights support Atwood’s dystopic vision. However, in the passage from the literary text to the screen, there are relevant aspects that characterize such a dystopia which are not taken into account. From such a perspective, I analyze the influence of a framed story within the category of the narrator and the presence of the Canadian space in the novel, in counterpoint to the “happy end” of the film.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".