MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053129690 · doi:10.5539/ells.v3n2p44

The Subversion of the Oriental Stereotype in M. Butterfly

2013· article· en· W2053129690 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Songfeng Wen

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Culture and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubversionButterflyStereotype (UML)PopularityIdeal (ethics)White (mutation)OperaPower (physics)AestheticsArtPsychologyLiteratureSocial psychologyPhilosophyEpistemologyLawPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is to examine the Oriental stereotype propagated by Giacomo Puccini’s Madame Butterfly and how it is subverted in David Henry Hwang’s M. Butterfly. Puccini portrays a docile, self-sacrificial Oriental woman who is totally submissive to and finally dies for her unworthy White lover. The opera’s popularity has perpetuated the stereotype of an ideal Oriental woman. In Hwang’s M. Butterfly, the stereotype of the ideal Oriental woman is subverted as the gender roles and the power structure of the Oriental woman and the Occidental man have been reversed. The White man, Gallimard, rather than a powerful sexual predator, is manipulated by his Oriental lover, a man masquerading woman, and finally dies for his Oriental lover. By analyzing the stereotype in Madame Butterfly and its subversion in M. Butterfly, it is hoped to reveal the insidiousness of stereotyping in understanding different cultures and peoples and it is also called for to rid people of stereotyping in cross-cultural communications.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicAsian Culture and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207