Crossing Boundaries Andcreating Space In Alice Munro’S Who Do You Think You Are
Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Who Do You Think You Are’isacclaimed as the best critical book of Munro’s career andis awarded with Governor General’s award, Canada highest literary prize. The title of the book itself refers tothe question of identity. In Munro’s earlier work, the search for identity is limited to the social milieu, where protagonists struggle against stereotypical gender norms to assert their own identity but this collection of short story reflects the battle of identity that isfoughtwithin the self and hence become a psychological struggle. Munro goes beyond the tradition of bildungsroman as a genre which explores the growing up of a male hero. She denies the chronological progression as in a conventional bildungsroman in order to explore the unequal opportunities and the power struggle of growing up of female protagonist so that she could realizeher true self.Thus, a full and far-reaching portrayal of female life and creativity is centered through Rose’s life with a candid attitude. Through the unfolding of the stories, we find an unapologetic insight into human behavior what turns out for Rose’s search for space in society. Hence, this paper endeavors to explore various elements of the protagonist’s struggle to find and shape her own identity; how she deniesbeing a puppet in the hands of others overstepping societal boundaries only to create space and a distinct identity thereupon in this patriarchal world.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".