MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1959941611 · doi:10.3968/7481

Triangle of Hatred: Sexism, Racism and Alienation in Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye

2015· article· en· W1959941611 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maher A. Mahdi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOppressionRacismAlienationIdeologySociologyArgument (complex analysis)Gender studiesHatredDilemmaWhite (mutation)LawPoliticsPolitical scienceEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dilemma of the African American woman is based on racial and sexist oppression that constantly marginalizes her where she is confined in a pitiful state of nothingness. This double oppression is best featured in Toni Morrison’s novel The Bluest Eye . The present article purports to investigate how African American women have tragically fallen under the destructive spell of sexism and racism and, consequently, marginality and alienation. My argument runs within the main lines of both feminist and cultural theoretical approaches. The Bluest Eye addresses three important issues: sexism, racism and alienation. This triangle relationship exposes the African American women’s intricate situation. Morrison criticizes both the oppressing forces in her (black) culture and white racism, whereas the whites take advantage of history to justify their own right to rule on the basis of the inferiority of a race and the superiority of another. This view of the justification of history conforms to Althusser’s concept of falsified ideology exploited to hegemonize others, where the black man justifies his sexism against his fellow women. Thus, the idea of the justification of history and the falsified ideology establish cultural and ideological oppression leading to the alienation of black women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207