MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899548161 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v9n1p1

Construction of Identity in Suheir Hammad’s What I will

2018· article· en· W2899548161 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gibreel Sadeq Alaghbary

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)LinguisticsConceptualizationPresuppositionSociologyOppressionTransitive relationNounPoetryComputer scienceAestheticsArtPhilosophyMathematicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper offers insights into the conceptualization of identity in poetry. In particular, it seeks to examine the way the Palestinian-American female poet Suheir Hammad negotiates her textual identity in the poem What I Will. The study uses Mill’s (1995) feminist stylistic theoretical framework in order to identify the identity Hammad constructs for herself in the poem, and the way this textually constructed identity plays out against her cultural heritage and ethnic origin. This objective will be achieved by examining the way textual identity is carried by linguistic choices at the lexical, lexico-grammatical (phrase/sentence) and discourse levels. Analysis reveals a dichotomy constructed via personal pronouns between the speaker and her aggressor. This oppositional relationship is reinforced by the transitivity choices and triggers of presupposition. The speaker uses no gender-specific or sexist nouns and pronouns and no description of her appearance in the textual construction of her identity. Her identity is constructed in terms of her collective ethnic background and resistance to the oppression of her aggressor.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.015
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207