MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081244997 · doi:10.1353/lan.2008.0028

<b>Considering counter-narratives:</b> Narrating, resisting, making sense. Ed. by Michael Bamberg and Molly Andrews. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004. Pp. x, 380. ISBN 1588115429. $126 (Hb).

2007· article· en· W2081244997 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yves Laverge

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeResistance (ecology)Power (physics)SociologyAestheticsPsychologyGender studiesHistoryLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Considering counter-narratives: Narrating, resisting, making sense ed. by Michael Bamberg and Molly Andrews Yves Laverge Considering counter-narratives: Narrating, resisting, making sense. Ed. by Michael Bamberg and Molly Andrews. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004. Pp. x, 380. ISBN 1588115429. $126 (Hb). This timely book borrows mainly from the editors’ themed issues of the peer-reviewed journal Narrative Inquiry (known before 1997 as the Journal of Narrative and Life History). This overlooked book is constructed in an original fashion: six core articles are each followed by a series of four or five commentaries by various authors (probably by some of the original reviewers) and then concluded with responses to the commentaries by the original authors of the [End Page 908] articles. I consider this unusual approach to discussion and debate efficient and thought-provoking. In ‘Opening to the original contributions: Counter-narratives and the power to oppose’, Molly Andrews broadly defines counter-narratives as ‘the stories which people tell and live which offer resistance, either implicitly or explicitly, to dominant cultural narratives’ (1). The six main articles touch on various themes including motherhood, normality, photography, daytime television talk shows, cultural memory, and older women talking about sex. All articles show how a second version of a story can somehow emerge from an event at some point. In the first part Andrews focuses on ‘the story of mothering’ as told in interviews with a few elderly people, wondering about how time can change their perceptions and judgments about their relationships with their own mothers. In Part 2 Karen Throsby argues that a group of participants who have failed at in vitro fertilization try to transform their way of retelling their stories into the terms of ‘normality’. In Part 3 Barbara Harrison studies relationships between photographic narratives and some other methods of constructing a story, usually texts. Part 4 is Rebecca Jones’s discussion of older women’s intimate thoughts about their own sexual experiences after the age of sixty. In Part 5 Corinne Squire studies the representation of gender and race in daytime television, observing differences between ‘serious’ shows and entertainment. Part 6 enables Mark Freeman to question what he calls the ‘narrative unconscious’ of the autobiographical narratives. Finally, Michael Bamberg provides an updated conclusion that did not appear in the original two issues of the journal. Perhaps the most stimulating pages in each part are the concise responses the authors of the six articles write to the commentaries, especially relating to the part on photography, which was my favorite because of the interdisciplinary perspectives it brought. There is also an accurate discussion about realism and hegemony in that part. On the down side, I do not consider Considering counter-narratives as relevant for undergraduates, but it might inspire many scholars working in linguistics, everyday sociology, cultural studies, and gerontology. I believe the book would even be suitable for some academics studying the dynamics of ideologies; that is the impression I got when I read it for the second time. Furthermore, the possible links between counter-narratives and ethnomethodology could be questioned more deeply, as is suggested in some chapters (see, for instance, pp. 114 and 191). I can understand why the coeditors did not want to impose their own definition of counter-narratives, but I would have liked to see this concept defined in clear terms by every author, at least tentatively; I feel most of them did it only implicitly. In sum, Considering counter-narratives is not made for newcomers in narrative studies, but it surely succeeds in opening many doors and raising more questions than bringing answers. I think most scholars already familiar with narrative theories and discourse analysis can still learn from the book. Yves Laverge Laval University Copyright © 2007 Linguistic Society of America

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0130.019
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.017

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguageSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207