MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790494124 · doi:10.5539/ells.v8n1p104

Struggle and Survival in Cultural Clash: A Case Study of Pecola in The Bluest Eye

2018· article· en· W2790494124 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bin Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican and British Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamTragedy (event)ScapegoatDichotomyDenialWhite (mutation)Identity (music)Culture of the United StatesSociologyCharacter (mathematics)Gender studiesAestheticsIdentification (biology)LiteratureLawArtPsychoanalysisPolitical sciencePsychologyPhilosophyEpistemologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toni Morrison is not only one of the Afro-American writers who focus on the clash between black culture and the white mainstream culture in the United States as well as the marginalized existence of the blacks, but more importantly a unique Afro-American woman writer who goes beyond the simplistic dichotomies of the black male literary tradition and explores the root of the tragedy of the blacks in the mainstream society. Based on textual analysis of her first novel The Bluest Eye and a case study of Pecola, a main character in this novel and actually a victim and scapegoat, this paper, with the painful truth that Pecola’s tragedy results not just from the denial and rejection of the mainstream society, but more significantly, from the blind identification of some blacks in the mainstream culture, and their incompetence to cherish their own culture and identity, aims at exploring hope in the tragic story, and suggesting how blacks can struggle to survive so as to extend their heritage and values.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0430.018
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicAmerican and British Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207