MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992563704

Descriptive Focus as a Semiotic Marker in Festus Iyayi’s Violence

2012· article· en· W2992563704 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Godwin Oko Ushie, Eno Grace Nta

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHumor Studies and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemioticsFocalizationFocus (optics)Theme (computing)PsychologyIconPower (physics)LinguisticsAestheticsComputer scienceLiteratureArtNarrative
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Descriptive Focus is a technique of rendering fiction whereby (mock) reality is constructed vividly and graphically through the descriptive power of portrayal. A prose writer using this style may zoom his lenses on certain episodes and characters to foreground areas of interest that contribute significantly to the understanding of the theme of the works. Descriptive Focus or Focalization, therefore, not only yields stylistic meaning, but also provides a means of deciphering the ideational dimension of a text. In the novel, Violence, focalization on the squalour, destitution and pitiable conditions of the poor masses is so pictorially captured with typified visual, tactile, gustatory, olfactory, auditory and kinaesthetic images that we are tempted to regard the work as faction. Contrastively, Iyayi portrays the upper class as rich and comfortable and reeling in surfeit while the poor who provide this comfort wallow in want. This paper analyzes this text-forming strategy and reaches the conclusion that the descriptive focus itself is a semiotic marker or a code in developing the ideational content of the novel and in and deciphering same by the audience. This evocative power of graphic description reinforces the themes in the novel. Key words: Descriptive focus; Ideation; Semiotic marker; Typification

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicHumor Studies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207