Time's Fools: Temporal Journeys and Perceptions in Contemporary Narratives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lucia Opreanu's Time's Fools: Temporal Journeys and Perceptions in Contemporary Narratives is a complex textual and cultural exploration of time, in its fluid and multidimensional aspects.Viewed as a relative and fragmentary construction, subjectively and paradoxically experienced, in infinite supply yet mysteriously running out, time is the common denominator of this riveting analysis of postmodern texts.Bringing together English, American and Canadian writers, Lucia Opreanu approaches the construct of time viewed as history/ value/ story/ memory/ personal experience, so as to create an inspired analysis of time travelers trapped in dystopian spaces, of life events which defy temporal causality and of time-keeping devices that tantalizingly fail to keep track of time.Lucia Opreanu offers a highly original investigation of recent novels, less scrutinized by prior critical voices and unveils how Homeric myths are distilled in protean postmodern narratives, by weaving themes and symbols which narcissistically and intertextually mirror each other.The space-time chronotope is investigated in Margaret Atwood' The Penelopiad , The Handmaid's Tale and The Testaments, Pat Barker' The Silence of the Girls, Natalie Heynes' A Thousand Ships, Audrey Niffenegger's The Time Traveler's Wife , Matt Haig's How to Stop Time and The Midnight Library, and in the movie About Time by Richard Curtis.The postmodern texts are systematically and creatively pursued to decipher the myriad connections among them and the way in which a text stems from others, or a discourse spills into another, in a circular and contiguous intertextuality.As such, a text is almost obssessively
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".