Reanalyze Motherhood in Tillie Olsen’s, I Stand Here Ironing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The theme of motherhood remains unconcluded to date. Opposing views are recurrent even within the feminist discourse. Minimal research exists on the postmodernist interpretation of Tillie Olsen’s I Stand Here Ironing and others similar to it in regard to the concept of motherhood. The present study aims to enlighten on the multifaceted nature of the concept and encourage more scholars to engage in the discussion of the text and extend to others for rich revelations concerning the concept of motherhood. The study utilizes the textual analysis method to enable close reading of Olsen’s I Stand Here Ironing to unravel the prescriptions of motherhood as advocated for in culture. Textual analysis facilitates an intimate engagement with the thoughts, arguments, and postulations present in Olsen’s authorship. The analysis has enabled the interrogation of the numerous positions that Olsen gives her readers. The study has introduced new insights to expand the scholarship on the concept of motherhood through the discussion of motherhood as a source of life and power. Olsen’s short story reflects the present predicaments women continue to face across the globe, especially in the third world nations. Women always find themselves at a crossroads where it appears they have to choose family or professional life. Motherhood is an important component in the creation of the female identity and hence has become increasingly inexorable to advance the concept. Choices and circumstances have empowered women to change the concept of motherhood. Unlike in the past, there is no explicit imposed definition. Subsequently, research on motherhood is far-reaching and fractured.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".