Step into My Parlour: Magical Realism and the Creation of a Feminist Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Originally considered a Latin American event (Zamora and Paris 1995,1), magic realism has been-convincingly shown to be far more widespread; indeed, recent decades it has been gaining international popularity. Yet despite its immense success, it remains among the most challengingly diverse and ill-defined of the literary modes or genres. Abstract, intuitive notions about the nature of magic realism abound, the most common of which is that it blends the magical and the real, introducing fantastic elements a real-world setting. This is also true of many other types of literature, however, and therefore the notion is too vague and imprecise to be helpful establishing a definition. One critic who has attempted to articulate the exact relationship between the magic and the real is Amaryll Chanady, who argued that any antinomy between these worlds is resolved, because in magic realism, the supernatural is presented as problematic, but is instead integrated within the norms of perception of the narrator and characters the fictitious world (1985, 23). Because they supposedly do question the supernatural, she concludes that the magic does not disconcert the reader (24). In other words, the magic is disturbing to the characters or narrator because it is
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".