MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973814499 · doi:10.1093/litthe/frz032

Violence and the Romance of Community: Darkness and Enlightenment in Patrick Friesen’s The Shunning

2019· article· en· W2973814499 on OpenAlexaff
Maxwell Kennel

Bibliographic record

VenueLiterature and Theology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnlightenmentSociologyRomanceModernityLate modernityGender studiesConversationReading (process)Identity (music)Context (archaeology)PostmodernityLiteratureAestheticsHistorySocial scienceLinguisticsEpistemologyPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article examines one literary expression of the ambiguities of violence in community life through a reading of Patrick Friesen’s The Shunning. By looking to the ways in which the social bonds of community identity are achieved, maintained, and challenged within the ostensibly nonviolent community of Old Colony Russian Mennonites that Friesen’s work portrays, this study focuses on how confluences of community, power, and violence are represented in literary form. Using tools provided by Miranda Joseph’s Against the Romance of Community and Michel Foucault’s critique of Enlightenment blackmail, the following study brings aspects of Mennonite transgressive literature into conversation with critical theory and interprets the portrayal of community discipline in The Shunning within the broader context of the contested relationships between the Enlightenment, modernity, and postmodernity.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.028
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiterature and TheologySame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207