MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1934086080 · doi:10.3968/4467

The Rainbow, as a Female Bildungsroman

2014· article· en· W1934086080 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yaorong He

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRainbowCharacter (mathematics)LiteratureFirst generationPsychoanalysisPsychologyGender studiesHistorySociologyArtDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is argued in this paper that The Rainbow, about three generations of the Brangwen family, is a female Bildungsroman, which focuses on the growth and initiation experiences of three main female characters—Lydia, Anna and Ursula. Moreover, the initiation is completed by three generations altogether. According to Mordecai Marcus(1969), there are three categories of initiation: tentative initiation experience, represented by the first generation of Brangwen family—Lydia; uncompleted initiation experience, the same case with the second generation—Anna; decisive initiation experience, whose spokesperson is the third generation—Ursula. The Rainbow, a book about the family history of the Brangwens, concerns the initiation experiences of three female characters. Based on such considerations, this paper, by means of textual analysis and comparative study, will prove that The Rainbow is a female Bildungsroman presenting the initiation experiences of three female generations of the Brangwen family, and the initiation experience of each female character is varied but closely related, which shows the growth is a complicated and gradual process.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207