MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758982046 · doi:10.3968/9812

An Interpretation of the Characters in Lessing’s Fictions From a Feminist Perspective

2017· article· en· W2758982046 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yechun Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeminismHatredTheme (computing)Gender studiesPerspective (graphical)Interpretation (philosophy)Feminist movementSociologyIdeal (ethics)PsychoanalysisFeminist philosophyLiteraturePhilosophyPsychologyArtEpistemologyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Doris Lessing’s attitude towards feminism and her writing about it always has a sense of ambiguity. Lessing’s characters have not only obvious feminist features but also a very feminist title: Free women. One can find clear feminist features in Lessing’s female protagonists from either The Golden Notebook or The Summer Before the Dark. They are all independent, anti-man and longing for freedom. They either get divorced with children (like Molly Jacobs and Anna Wulf) or stay as free as unmarried within marriage (like Kate Brown). Their independence, hostility against men and desire for freedom are the seminal features of feminism. And the self-discovery of these female characters is at the same time Lessing’s own exploration into feminism itself. Besides, the male characters in Lessing’s fictions have an equal importance in suggesting Lessing’s feminist ideas. In Anna’s words, women, especially woman writers, create their men in their fictions because it’s rather impossible for them to find an ideal one but in the fictional world. Among these male characters, there is Paul Tanner, the woman-hater, and Saul Green in whom one can see understanding to feminism instead of hatred. These male characters share equal importance as female ones in revealing Lessing’s exploration into the feminist theme. Therefore, the thesis is an attempt to analyze these characters from a feminist perspective so as to understand the value of Lessing’s fictions as feminist texts.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
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 topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207