MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945174606 · doi:10.5539/ells.v9n2p57

Social and Physical Entrapments of Women in Bapsi Sidhwa’s Ice-Candy Man and Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things

2019· article· en· W2945174606 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhammad Arfan Lodhi, Faiza Khalid, Iqbal Mehmood, Faiz Rasool, Farhan Akbar, Muhammad Amir Kamal

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSouth Asian Cinema and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreaturesCasteCreedSociologyGender studiesPsychologyHistoryPhilosophyPolitical scienceTheologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study highlights the social and physical entrapments of women in two novels: Bapsi Sidhwa’s Ice-Candy Man and Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. Both writers belong to two different cultures. Bapsi Sidhwa is a Punjabi, Parsi, Pakistani novelist while Arundhati Roy is an Indian Author. Regardless of their different cultures, they have discussed similar issues faced by women of their contemporary societies. This case study adopted exploratory research framework to gather data and undergo its content analysis from the text of two selected novels. The findings explicate that woman exploitation can be observed evidently among different societies irrespective of any culture, religion, caste or creed. In both novels, women are represented as shallow creatures and they are utterly victimized physically as well as emotionally. They are raped and beaten brutally by males being their unbidden masters. Sidhwa and Roy enlighten the plight of women in their novels, though slight elements of unjust maltreatment of the male characters can also be seen at many places.

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)0.003
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicSouth Asian Cinema and CultureFrench-language works237,207