MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220983161 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v12n2p14

Linking Metanarrative: Lexical Content in Preeti Shenoy’s A Hundred Little Flames

2022· article· en· W4220983161 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
D. Pandeeswari, A. Hariharasudan, P. Madhumitha, C. Saranya

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural and Sociopolitical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetanarrativePostmodernismNarrativePhilosophyLiteratureLinguisticsEpistemologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Postmodern metanarrative abbreviates the relation between entrap the texts that are wreaked by incidents, quotes, allusions, translation and so on. The aim of the study spotlights on the postmodern tendency of metanarrative in Preeti Shenoy’s selected text, A Hundred Little Flames. Preeti Shenoy is a multifarious postmodern writer. The term metanarrative is linked with dialect in the texts. The features of metanarrative are dialect, incident, way of narration and allusion etc. Jean Francois Lyotard is one among notable theorist of metanarrative. The present study has adopted only Lyotard’s metanarrative theory. The methodology of the study splits into three metanarrative concepts – narration towards knowledge, narration towards dialect and narration towards nostalgia. Lyotard proposed these three diverse concepts in his famous book The Postmodern Condition. These metanarrative concepts are adapted to the present study, and the authors have investigated the metanarrative elements in the select text of Shenoy. The results of the study are evaluated with other studies under postmodern metanarrative.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicCultural and Sociopolitical StudiesFrench-language works237,207