Trauma, Haunting, and the Limits of Narration in Gabi Köpp’s <i>Warum war ich bloß ein Mädchen</i>, Leonie Biallas’s <i>“Komm, Frau, raboti”: Ich war Kriegsbeute</i>, and Renate Meinhof’s <i>Das Tagebuch der Maria Meinhof</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article the author examines three examples of German women’s life-writing that thematize mass rapes by the Red Army at the end of the Second World War from the perspective of adolescent girls, regarding their representation of the rapes and the way they frame the trauma experienced by the survivors along with short- and long-term consequences. The author argues that despite the effects of what Suzette Henke calls “scriptotherapy” the narratives may have had for their writers, two levels of haunting intersect and ultimately remain unreconciled in these texts : (1) the haunting of the sexual violence that affected the women personally; and (2) the haunting of the Nazi past. While the former is the main focus of the narratives in that they attempt to formulate what Urvashi Butalia calls a “vocabulary of rupture” around traumatic memory, the latter manifests in a contradictory representation of the Soviets as well as in narrative lacunae or erasure of Nazi Germany’s responsibility for the war. The author concludes with a reflection on contemporary sexual politics and the transgenerational impact of the haunting in children born of rape.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".