Dominant Discourse and Counter Discourse: The Study of Dissident Voices in The March by E. L. Doctorow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been many texts and writings which show resistances and deviations against dominant power and ideology. Foucault’s discusses the existence of power relations in texts and addresses the ways which power uses to confront such deviancies in his book, Discipline and Punish. Literary texts can be viewed as sources where dominant discourse, ideologies, beliefs, opinions and ideas can be found. This can be more interesting when texts refer to an important event in history. The March is about the historical event of General Sherman’s march through America. Doctorow’s text tries to reveal a discourse other than the dominant one regarding this historical event. The March is studied to highlight deviations and dissidences expressed in it. Alan Sinfield believes that this representation of resistances in texts can show some fault-lines in power relations and create some gaps in power structures. These gaps can be considered as a threat to dominant ideology. Doctorow’s writing is scrutinized to underline such gaps in the society which he reveals in the novel.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".