MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463443263 · doi:10.3968/7936

Analysis the Gender Conflicts of The Joy Luck Club

2015· article· en· W2463443263 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lihua Chen, Man Xiong

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterary Theory and Cultural Hermeneutics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuckClubNarrativeMainstreamChinese americansCriticismSociologyGender studiesPerspective (graphical)LiteratureHistoryAestheticsPsychologyMedia studiesPolitical scienceLawArtVisual artsEpistemologyPhilosophyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amy Tan shot to fame and became one of the famous best-selling writers for the work The Joy Luck Club in America. As a female Chinese-American writer, Amy Tan successfully edged herself into American mainstream culture after Kingston and since then American publishers started paying much more attention to Chinese American writer and more of their works entered into mainstream society which set off a boom of Chinese American literature. The novel describes four women with different characters and fates to immigrate to the USA when facing the disasters of the country and their life and it also covers the growing experience of four daughters of the four women. This paper focuses on this novel and analyzes it from the perspectives of narrative point of view, narrative voice, narrative language features and narrative content; all of it is based on the theories that is the distinguishing features in men’s and women’s writing in order to find out the writing characteristic, furthermore in some extent, it will provide a new perspective for literature criticism and research on The Joy Luck Club .

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicLiterary Theory and Cultural HermeneuticsFrench-language works237,207