Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pygmalion is the representative play by the famous British playwright Bernard Shaw. Up to now, there have been many academic discussions on it from different perspectives. This paper intends to analyze the play from the feminist perspective. From this perspective, we can clearly find that the play is no doubt the creation of woman, either the creation of a duchess from a flower girl, or the creation of a woman from a duchess, in which man is God, the father, and the creator, whereas woman is in the position of a child, a pupil, being corrected , educated and remade by man. The woman character in it is seen only as an object for experiment. Through detailed analysis, the paper exposes how woman figure being pre-patterned, and the position of woman in society being forced to the lowest. Key words: Bernard Shaw, Pygmalion, Feminist Perspective Resume: Pygmalion est la piece representative du celebre dramaturge anglais Bernard Shaw. Jusqu’a aujourd’hui, il y a eu beaucoup de discussions academiques sur cette piece dans de differentes perspectives. Cet essai tente de l’analyser dans la perspective feministe. Ainsi, nous trouvons clairement que cette piece est sans doute la creation de la femme, creation d’une duchesse a partir d’une fille, ou creation d’une femme a partir d’une dechesse, au cours de laquelle l’homme-le pere et le createur- est Dieu, mais la femme est dans la position d’un enfant, un eleve qui est corrigee et eduquee par l’homme. La femme est consideree seulement comme un objet d’experimentation. A la suite de l’analyse en detail, l’essai expose comment la figure de femme est premodelee et la position sociale de la femme est reduite au plus bas niveau. Mots-Cles: George Bernard Shaw, Pygmalion, perspective feministe
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".