MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755136056 · doi:10.3968/9782

An Interpretation of Jane Austen’s Emma by Lacan’s Theory of Mirror Stage

2017· article· en· W2755136056 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yechun Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiterature Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsId, ego and super-egoRealmThe ImaginaryPsychoanalysisPsychoanalytic theoryOrder (exchange)FeelingPhilosophyThe SymbolicObedienceSubjectivityInterpretation (philosophy)SociologySelfPerspective (graphical)EpistemologyPsychologyArtLawSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emma is honored as the most mature work by Jane Austen. It centers on Emma Woodhouse, the heroine, and reveals the complicated love relationships among Frank Churchill and Harriet Smith, Mr. Elton and Jane Fairfax, and Mr. Knightley and Harriet Smith. This thesis intends to probe into the inner world of Emma and uncover her intricate feeling of match-making for others to self love seeking from the perspective of Lacan’s Mirror Stage and Three-Order Theory. From the theory, a number of crises among Emma and her father, Miss Taylor, and her other friends arise, which all contribute to her loss of complete ego. The split Emma, like a new-born infant, returns to the front of the mirror and begins to see her split ego in it. The Imaginary is the first realm of Lacan’s three Orders. The illusions from Harriet’s obedience, Frank’s deliberate deceiving, and the subtle relationship between Harriet and Mr. Knightley all lead Emma to irresistible self-seeking. Emma seeks out her ego under the Law in the Symbolic Order. In the constraint of Phallus, Emma eventually realizes her true emotion to Mr. Knightley and abandons the thought of match-making for Harriet. She breaks through the obstacles of herself in the Symbolic at last. After undergoing this self recognition, Emma reaches the Real Order, the last realm of ego seeking. Everything before all helps her sublimation in the Real.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designObservational
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 venueCanadian social scienceSame topicLiterature Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207