Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore how Atwood embodies her vision of duplicity in The Journals of Susanna Moodie. Atwood is primarily concerned with themes of opposition or polarity. But she strives for a constructive reconciliation of various polarities. For Atwood, duplicity is a natural state that should be viewed positively, and is not to be confused with polarity. She suggests that when we reduce relationships to polar opposites - subject/object, mind/body, male/female, or culture/nature - we set up adversary positions, in other words, the power politics of victims and victors. The Journals of Susanna Moodie is the best of Atwood's works, for it is the mythic embodiment of Atwood's vision, an emblem of Canada's cultural past and a symbol of human physiological, psychological, and linguistic doubleness. In The Journals Atwood speaks with Moodie's double voice to make the readers hear and see the possibilities or inevitability of duality. In accepting, instead of polarizing our identity, we accept the self's duplication of everything. And instead of defining ourselves over against our surroundings and each other like Moodie, the progressively insane pioneer, we must learn to accept our place within a duplistic system which we mirror and in which we are mirrored. That is the way of being which we can live in a natural creative harmony with the world.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".