MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744881388 · doi:10.3968/9695

An Interpretation of Cather’s Prairie Trilogy From the Perspective of Diaspora Criticism

2017· article· en· W2744881388 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chang Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican and British Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrilogyDiasporaCriticismLiteratureLiterary criticismInterpretation (philosophy)American literaturePostmodernismEcocriticismFeminismHistoryPhilosophySociologyArtGender studiesTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Willa Cather (1873-1947) is an American novelist, short story writer, essayist, journalist and poet. She is widely acknowledged as one of the foremost American authors in the 20 th  century. Cather’s unique observations of the American West find full expression in her prairie trilogy, composed of O Pioneers! (1913), the Song of the Lark (1915), and My Antonia (1918). However, the three novels have got unequal attention from both international and domestic scholars. There are much more studies on O Pioneers! and My Antonia  than The Song of the Lark . The literary approaches already in use are mainly feminism and ecocriticism. But the author of the thesis holds that the heart of them is about the material and spiritual realities of those immigrants in the American West in the dawn of the 20 th  century, thereupon, it is reasonable to put them together for a comparative study. To have a better understanding of the transnational phenomena observed by Cather, we can adopt Diaspora criticism to find out what Cather wants to convey to us: the cultural logic of beyond, against the singularities of identities and of perspectives. Hopefully, approaching Cather’s prairie trilogy from the perspective of Diaspora criticism will shed some new light on her novels.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.305 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicAmerican and British Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207