MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Foregrounding Achebe’s Things Fall Apart: A Postcolonial Study

2011· article· en· W1943209820 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nasser Maleki, Maryam Navidi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForegroundingSensibilityPrideColonialismAestheticsConsciousnessIdentity (music)SociologyContext (archaeology)HistoryGender studiesAnthropologyLiteratureArtPolitical sciencePhilosophyLawEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chinua Achebe (1930- ) took to the writing of novels and short stories in order to instill socio-cultural and historical awareness among his readers which had a subtle under-pattern of great validity in changing the life condition and outlook of men and women with a modicum of consciousness and sensibility. He was very much concerned about the fate of a society moving inexorably toward thoroughgoing denigration and the self abasement, which accompanied it. It is in this context that Achebe cautioned his native readers to note that the restricted colonial livelihood was not enough. He held that urgent need was some form of Negritude among the colonized Africa. With this perspective in mind, in this article the treatment of Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, as a literary preserver of the African social-cultural and historical values, is undertaken to be examined.  This article also argues that through this novel Achebe extrapolates the pride in the cultural and religious aspects of the African postcolonial heritage. Key words: Africa; Achebe; Negritude; Identity; Colonizers

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0270.020
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207