MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529052682 · doi:10.15388/litera.2004.5.8169

Intertekstinis Margaretos Atwood romano Tarnaitės pasakojimas skaitymas

2015· article· en· W2529052682 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rūta Šlapkauskaitė

Bibliographic record

VenueLiteratūra · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShort Stories in Global Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeIntertextualityLiteratureReading (process)Context (archaeology)ImpossibilityDystopiaArtHistoryPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its publication in 1985, Margaret Atwood’s dystopia The Handmaid’s Tale has prominently secured its place among the most widely read novels of Canadian literature. The present article offers a reading of Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale as a narrative built on intertextual relationships with other texts, which are directly or implicitly referred to in the novel. This analysis of the novel emphasizes reading as a dynamic semiotic process and employs Gérard Genette’s notion of transtextuality to look into the narrative’s semantic field from the perspective of its paratextual, intertextual and metatextualrelationships. While focusing on the Bible as the major intertext that structures the semantic space of Atwood’s narrative, this intertextual reading of The Handmaid’s Tale also looks at the ways in which the biblical context of Atwood’s novel correlates with the paratexts of Jonathan Swift’s essay A Modest Proposal and sufi philosophy to delineate the dominant strategies of the reading and interpreting of Atwood’s text. Finally, the article analyzes the metatextual level of Atwood’s novel and points out the ways in which the writer ironizes the intertextual nature of her own text and fictionalizes its intertexts, thereby suggesting the impossibility of narrative and interpretative closure.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiteratūraSame topicShort Stories in Global LiteratureFrench-language works237,207