MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015197979 · doi:10.5539/elt.v13n5p11

An Interpretation of Influences of Institutionalization on the Fate of Characters in “The Shawshank Redemption”

2020· article· en· W3015197979 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peng Yuan-yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionalisationInstitutionPsychologyPrisonCoping (psychology)Social psychologyInterpretation (philosophy)SociologyCriminologyPsychotherapistSocial sciencePsychiatryPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Institutionalization is mentioned over and over again in film “The Shawshank Redemption”. In this film, the institution refers to the fixed prison institution, and institutionalization refers to a process of rigidifying prisoners’ behaviors, thoughts and mindsets in some imperceptible constraint mechanisms. In this process, the prisoners are forced to change their original behaviors, thoughts and ideas, and begin to accept, get used to and even depend on the current situation little by little. As a result, they become obedient to such prison management. They don’t want or dare to change their realistic conditions, but have to depend on them for survival. The death of Brooks, pigeon Jake and Tommy, the fear of Red and the escape of Andy are all associated with institutionalization. In this paper, influences of institutionalization on the fate of characters in “The Shawshank Redemption” were analyzed. In addition, the wisdom of coping with and avoiding institutionalization was preliminarily analyzed.

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)0.007
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207