MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753711390 · doi:10.5195/ahea.2017.281

Creating a “Vocabulary of Rupture” Following WWII Sexual Violence in Hungarian Women Writers’ Narratives

2017· article· en· W2753711390 on OpenAlexaff
Agatha Schwartz

Bibliographic record

VenueHungarian Cultural Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeIdeologyOrientalismMemoirRepresentation (politics)HistorySexual violenceVocabularyWorld War IIWhite (mutation)Gender studiesLiteraturePsychologySociologyPoliticsCriminologyArtPolitical scienceLawArt historyPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, Schwartz analyses three narratives by Hungarian women writers— Alaine Polcz’s Asszony a fronton (A Wartime Memoir), Judit Kováts’s Megtagadva [‘Denied’] and Fanni Gyarmati Miklósné Radnóti’s Napló [‘Diary’]—with regard to their representation of the rapes of Hungarian women by Red Army soldiers during WWII. Schwartz examines to what degree the rapes are positioned as a “rupture” in the first person narrators’ lives, and how the three narratives offer elements of a “vocabulary of rupture” (Butalia 2000) so as to work through traumatic memory and thus come to terms with both the short-term and long-term effects of trauma and social stigmatization. Even though the narratives eschew a black-and-white portrayal of the rapists, an orientalist stereotying is nonetheless present. Schwartz concludes with Avery Gordon that these and other rape narratives can be read as part of the process of settling the ghosts of a still unresolved past violence yet beyond simple ideological binaries along the victim-perpetrator line.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.034
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHungarian Cultural StudiesSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207