MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536556421 · doi:10.1080/17550912.2016.1229421

The post-colonial novels of Desmond Stewart and Ethel Mannin

2016· article· en· W2536556421 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Al‐Rawi

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Arab Affairs · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollockHegemonyIdeologyPoliticsColonialismMainstreamMonarchyHistoryNational identitySociologyArt historyLiteratureLawArtPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In presenting their characters and political ideologies, Desmond Stewart (1924–81) and Ethel Mannin (1900–84) are both unique among British fiction writers because they offered different portrayals of the post-colonial Arab world than what was mostly found in Western mainstream writings. While Stewart discussed the postcolonial era in Iraq by focusing on pan-Arab national movements that rejected the British hegemony during the monarchical period, Mannin focused on the postcolonial era which followed the British occupation and was represented in the Palestinian national movements. This paper argues that Stewart and Mannin offered a more complex and diverse view of the Arab world that was far different from many other stereotypical fictional depictions. It deals more in depth with the following novels: Stewart’s Leopard in the Grass (London: W. J. Pollock, 1951) and A Stranger in Eden or The Unsuitable Englishman (New York: Signet, 1954), as well as Mannin’s The Road to Beersheba (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1963) and The Night and Its Homing (London: Hutchinson, 1966).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Arab AffairsSame topicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207