MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137855206 · doi:10.5539/ells.v4n4p100

“The New History” in Toni Morrison’s Beloved and the Construction of the Black’s Subjectivity

2014· article· en· W2137855206 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gang Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRace, History, and American Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubjectivityNew HistoricismWhite (mutation)ColonialismIdentity (music)HegemonyMainstreamSociologyBetrayalGender studiesConsciousnessDouble consciousnessAestheticsHistoryLiteratureArtPhilosophyPoliticsEpistemologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toni Morrison is a famous contemporary American writer who mainly focuses her attention on the life of the black: their history as well as their spiritual world. In her highly acclaimed novel Beloved, Morrison conciously sets African Americans’s past and their present living situation into her work, for she intends to make use of her literary discourse to reproduce “A New History”—the true history of the American black people that was once veiled by the American white’s mainstream society. In this way, she hopes to cure the psychological trauma of the black and call on her people to look for their lost culture root and reconstruct their ethnic consciousness. So this article will apply the theory of new historicism to analyze how Morrison reveals the pathetic history of American black and the cracks in colonialism and hegemony in Beloved, thus subverting the master discourse and breaking down the black’s marginalized identity,and finally reconstructing Afro-American’s culture and their subjectivity.

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)0.003
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.036
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicRace, History, and American SocietyFrench-language works237,207