MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944772845 · doi:10.3138/cras.49.1.004

Power and the Denial of Femininity in <i>Game of Thrones</i>

2019· article· en· W2944772845 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Diana Marques

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemininityDenialPower (physics)FantasyMedievalismGender studiesOrder (exchange)SociologyAestheticsPsychologyLiteratureHistoryPsychoanalysisArtMiddle Ages

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Being inspired by medieval history and culture, Game of Thrones may be regarded as a work of neo-medievalism, depicting a world where several fantasy and medieval literary characteristics are subverted. One of them is the portrayal of women who are strong and violent, and who disrupt gender norms, such as Brienne of Tarth, Arya Stark, and Yara Greyjoy. Accordingly, it seems that in order to wield male power and to engage in traditionally male activities, these women have to deny their femininity. Thus, the aim of this article is to understand why women must deny their femininity to be taken seriously in traditionally male roles, and whether that denial transforms as effective power or undermines them in the eyes of Westerosi society.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.040
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.257
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207