MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742261682 · doi:10.3968/9605

Human beings create their own destruction: Critical discourse analysis of Once Upon a Time by Nadine Gordimer

2017· article· en· W2742261682 on OpenAlex
Muhammad Zohaib Khalil, Muhammad Ehsan, Khalid Mehmood, Hina Zainab, Farwa Azam

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Educational Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyRace (biology)RacismGender studiesSociologyCriminologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prezzie study is a Critical Discourse Analysis of Nadine Gordimer’s short story “Once Upon a Time”. The idea is to spotlight that is in Nadine Gordimer’s mind how human beings create their own destruction. Gordimer’s work is full of racial discrimination and social insecurity in the people of the South-African society and this insecurity and racial discrimination show how insecure they people are. The study is the scrutiny of Ruth Wodak Model. Research explores the human race is responsible for creating its own devastation. Moreover, the study tells us how we prepare ourselves in the danger of insecurity and how we can prevent ourselves in such circumstances.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.408 · 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