MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907522660

Murdering Mothers? Representations of Mothers Who Kill Their Children in Theatre and Law

2017· dissertation· en· W2907522660 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kaley Malka Ames

Bibliographic record

VenueYorkSpace (York University) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOppressionGender studiesScholarshipInnocenceFeminist legal theoryTragedy (event)SociologyFamily lawLawCriminologyForced marriageCriminal lawFeminismPolitical scienceSocial sciencePolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This interdisciplinary thesis examines the representation of women who kill their children in theatre and law using a feminist maternal theoretical lens. Focalizing this examination is in the use of scholarship from Canadian criminal law and legal history from the discipline of Law, feminist maternal theory from the discipline of Gender and Womens Studies, and classical tragedy from the discipline of Classical Studies. The primary goal of this thesis is to show how the oppression of and attitudes towards mothers who kill their children have remained yet taken different forms within the patriarchal structure of society over time. For case studies this thesis uses Kate Mulvany and Ann-Louise Sarks 2012 adaptation of Euripides Medea and the 2011 Ontario court case R v. L.B.. This thesis concludes that the invisible father and the overvaluation of childhood innocence are the patriarchal parenting components that continue to oppress mothers. This thesis recommends that change would be brought about through public policy and feminist advocacy on the issues of meaningful and equal access to childcare, closing the gendered wage gap, and the encouragement and normalization of fathers taking parental leave.

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)0.008
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYorkSpace (York University)Same topicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseFrench-language works237,207