MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056636709 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v3n1p24

The Western Voice and Feminist Criticism of the Nigerian Novel

2013· article· en· W2056636709 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonas Egbudu Akung

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterary Theory and Cultural Hermeneutics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriticismIdeologyFeminismPerspective (graphical)Gender studiesSociologyOrder (exchange)Feminist theoryPolitical scienceLawArtPoliticsVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Western voice is one of the pioneering voices in the early development of the feminist criticism of the Nigeriannovel. As a result it constantly deploys Western critical methods into the criticism of the Nigerian Novel .This papertherefore re-examines these issues using meta-criticism in order to put the feminist ideology in proper perspective inthe Nigerian Novel. The feminist ideology in the Nigerian Novel tends to reduce Africa to cultural satellite of Europe.The attempts by the practitioners of feminist theory to define and align themselves with the theory have producedmany strands of the same theory. Among these strands are: feminism, motherism, womanism among others, all in aneffort to remain African and still relevant within the global perspectives. The paper discusses Western feminist critics’views on the Nigerian novel. The paper concludes that though the theory is gaining wide acclaim in Nigeria, whatthis paper advocates is womanism which is accommodative, complimentary and non-radical in its approach

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.023
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicLiterary Theory and Cultural HermeneuticsFrench-language works237,207