MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976154459 · doi:10.7771/1481-4374.1081

A Comparative Post-Colonial Approach to Hedayat's The Blind Owl

2000· article· en· W1976154459 on OpenAlexaff
Yasamine C. Coulter

Bibliographic record

VenueCLCWeb Comparative Literature and Culture · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphysicsColonialismContext (archaeology)DilemmaLiteratureHistoryPhilosophyEpistemologyOmnipresenceAestheticsSociologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In her article, "A Comparative Post-Colonial Approach to Hedayat's The Blind Owl," Yasamine C. Coulter discusses post-colonial theories of Edward Said, Frantz Fanon, and Jalal ale Ahmad, and relates them to the major themes of Hedayat's novel. For the most part, the fact that the text's narrator is disillusioned with his country's traditional way of life makes him an outsider within his own society. However, he fails to find peace in his other, chosen, mode of being and this implies that he is unable to fully identify with Western traditions, either. It is at this point of the text that Coulter draws a parallel between the narrator's distress and Sadegh Hedayat's personal angst, both of which stem from an inability to reconcile Western and Eastern influences and modes of existence and culture. Moreover, the narrator's inability to completely accept or disregard the notion of metaphysics is a macrocosmic manifestation of his cultural dilemma. Coulter concludes her argumentation with a discussion of how one of perhaps the most important fault lines of post-colonial discourse is very real in present-day Iran, precisely because Iranians still do not agree on how to reclaim their cultural past and assert their own identity in the real context of Western cultural omnipresence.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.022
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCLCWeb Comparative Literature and CultureSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207