A Feministic Discourse of Existentialism in Namita Gokhale’s Select Works
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existentialism argues for people’s way of life and rights. The structure of existentialism shows people’s misery and action to achieve their aim and their obligations. Existentialist feminism talks for women to make them realise their existence. The ideas of existentialist feminism theory are compared with Namita Gokhale’s selected texts Priya: In Incredible Indyaa (2011), The Book of Shadows (1999), and Things to Leave Behind (2016). The concepts of existentialist feminism examined with Namita Gokhale’s women characters of the selected texts to analyse their choice, existence, etc. The selected texts have the ideas of existentialist feminism. Existentialist feminism is explored through the attributions of the life of women characters in Namita Gokhale’s selected texts Priya: In Incredible Indyaa (2011), The Book of Shadows (1999), and Things to Leave Behind (2016). In Namita Gokhale’s selected works, the leading characters are represented existentialism aspects are Priya, Rachita, and Tilottama. For this research, the researchers of chosen current study theorists are Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and Albert Camus. The methodology of this study adopts this theory to analyse the reflection of existentialist feminism in Namita Gokhale’s selected texts. This study compares with the other studies related to existentialism feminism. Future study recommendations are psychoanalysis theory, alienation, feminism, and identity crisis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".