Honor Crimes in Sahar Khalifeh’s The Inheritance and Sean O’Casey’s Juno and the Paycock : A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the concept of “honor crimes” as reflected in two literary works—Sahar Khalifeh’s The Inheritance (1997/2005) and Sean O’Casey’s Juno and the Paycock (1924/2009). The female characters—Zaynab and Nahleh in Khalifeh’s The Inheritance and Mary in O’Casey’s Juno and the Paycock —are maintained by the masculine discourse of honor as symbols rather than individuals to be protected and avenged by the males. Ironically, the discourse of honor is a gender-based mechanism which observes only the females’ morality and justifies the males’ violations to the cultural ethics. Even though the male characters—Mazin and Said in Khalifeh’s The Inheritance and Boyle and Johnny in O’Casey’s Juno and the Paycock —show moral and ethical irresponsibility towards the financial and social assistance of their families, they view themselves as the guardians of the honor of their families. To establish a space of gender equality in which both males and females share the ethical and social liability, Khalifeh and O’Casey empower the feminine voice to question and dismantle the patriarchal hypocrisy of the discourse of honor. Khalifeh’s The Inheritance and O’Casey’s Juno and the Paycock show that honor crimes, which are legitimized by cultural rather than religious definitions, are not peculiar to one culture or one region. In other words, the female characters in Khalife’s novel and O’Casey’s play negotiate their cultures rather than religions to achieve social equality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".