MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168459219 · doi:10.18573/ipics.50

Forget Modesty – Here Comes the Tail: Abject Bodies, Post-Humanistic Philosophy and Larissa Lai’s Salt Fish Girl

2011· article· en· W3168459219 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susanne Wegener

Bibliographic record

VenueAssuming Gender · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShort Stories in Global Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeGirlHumanismLiteraturePerformative utteranceAmbivalenceAestheticsQueerArtSociologyArt historyPhilosophyGender studiesPsychoanalysisPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<span>Clearly influenced by Julia Kristeva’s psychoanalytics of abjection and a feminist, post-humanistic philosophy of multiplicity and becoming in the wake of Spinoza and Gilles Deleuze, Larissa Lai uses the abject and abjection – defined by George Bataille as ‘the inability to assume with sufficient strength the imperative act of excluding abject things’ – as key tropes in </span><em>Salt Fish Girl</em><span>. Lai’s negotiation of abjection is, however, not limited to the diegetic world of her novel. As a writer who also publishes critical work on minority writing and the politics of representation, Larissa Lai has commented on </span><em>Salt Fish Girl</em><span> extensively and in a way that disrupts conventional textual boundaries. Accordingly, this article not only addresses Lai’s depiction of abject bodies and processes of abjection within her novel, but also the astonishing amount of paratextual comment the Asian Canadian author has produced while self-consciously circulating her own body as an Asian abject defined by the discourse of Canadian state multiculturalism. It takes a closer look at the political implications of the highly ambivalent, queer narration, the abject textual body comprised of the novel’s text, and the enormous ‘tail’ of its verbal and performative authorial paratext.</span>

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssuming GenderSame topicShort Stories in Global LiteratureFrench-language works237,207