MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288016471 · doi:10.1080/00111619.2015.1091286

“You Might Not Call Penelope Fitzgerald a Feminist Writer, but She Is One”: On Gender and the Discourse of Certitude in<i>Offshore</i>

2016· article· en· W2288016471 on OpenAlexaff
Lewis MacLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueCritique Studies in Contemporary Fiction · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican and British Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilenceFeminismSociologyReading (process)Critical readingCritical theoryEpistemologyGender studiesAestheticsPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article begins with a discussion of the peculiar critical silence surrounding the work of Penelope Fitzgerald, one of the most important novelists of the past half century. It suggests that, where Fitzgerald is concerned, critical reticence is a consequence of discursive evasiveness. Unlike, for example, J. M. Coetzee, Fitzgerald does not lend herself to any of the theoretical or critical frameworks which inform contemporary academic discourse. Questions regarding what type of writer Fitzgerald is remain unsettled, and, in consequence, no type of critical approach ever seems obvious or appropriate. The second part of the article tentatively proposes a feminist reading of Offshore. This feminism is manifested not in any kind of strident or oppositional advocacy but rather in terms of an ironic, often oblique, critique of masculinized discourses of certitude. There are no staunch feminist positions in Offshore, just a sustained attempt to undermine totalizing (“know-it-all”) patriarchal claims at absolute knowledge and containment.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.017
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritique Studies in Contemporary FictionSame topicAmerican and British Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207