MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225305701 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp15518

Whiteness and Blackness in The Bluest Eye

2022· article· en· W4225305701 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lorena Misiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRace, History, and American Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeautyAestheticsConvictionWhite (mutation)Privilege (computing)White privilegeIdeologyRacismSociologyInvisibilityLawGender studiesArtPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toni Morrison has long proposed that the concept of physical beauty is one of the most destructive ideologies of human thought. This essay aims to deal with how Morrison’s 1970 novel The Bluest Eye exposes the dogma that physical beauty and pureness itself are straightforwardly associated with whiteness; allowing whiteness to provide a cloak of invisibility to those who possess it. This then subjects blackness to be the placeholder of what is ugly, bad and dangerous in the world; forcing the trait of blackness to be a conviction of visibility. This essay will follow myself, a white individual, grappling with the fact that I have been given the privilege to go through life unnoticed only because I happened to be born white. Further, the repercussions of this fact are confronted, those who are black are stripped from the privilege of going unnoticed. The Bluest Eye and my mediation of the novel present that even a raised consciousness about the privileges of whiteness fails to prevent racial self-loathing and violence against Blacks due to whiteness taking over the measure of humanness. Despite this, there is still hope in the future of blackness which can only be accomplished by displacing the authority of whiteness and questioning the structures that allow the authority of whiteness to prevail.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.019
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicRace, History, and American SocietyFrench-language works237,207