Sister Carrie in Consumer Society as Seen from Deception Within Non-verbal and Verbal Framework and the Fulfillment of Desires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay attempts to analyze the theme of deception which is presented by two forms, one is silence, the other is lie, which are known as the deception within the non-verbal and verbal framework respectively. Widely employed in Sister Carrie, the theme of deception reveals the conflicts between feminine and masculine power through the utterances. In addition, the materialization in the relationship between man and woman especially Carrier and her two lovers is presented in the consumer society. And the protagonists in the novel are tragic products of the inability to communicate with each other and the victims of their desires and consumer society. Key words: Silence, lie, consumer society, desire Resume: Le present article tente d’analyser le theme de tromperie qui est presente sous deux formes dont l’une est le silence et l’autre est le mensonge, qui sont consideres comme la tromperie dans le cadre non-verbal et verbal. Amplement employe dans Sister Carrie, le theme de tromperie revele les conflits entre les puissances feminine et masculine a travers les paroles. De plus, la materialisation de la relation homme-femme, notamment entre Carrie et ses deux amants, est presentee dans la societe de consommation. Et les protagonistes du roman sont les produits tragiques de l’incommunication entre eux et les victimes de leurs desirs et de la societe de consommation. Mots-Cles: silence, mensonge, societe de consommation, desir
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".