A Lacanian Psychoanalytic Interpretation of Alice Munro’s Who Do You Think You Are?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The short story collection Who Do You Think You Are? by Canadian writer Alice Munro, who won the Nobel Prize in literature in 2013. It takes the heroine's pursuit of who am I as the mainline, shows the complex psychological changes and living conditions of female characters in different stages and circumstances, and reflects that the construction of female identity is a continuous process of constantly understanding, adjusting, and surpassing ego. Lacanian psychoanalysis takes the subject as the core and connects the subject, the other, and desire through the framework of the Imaginary Order, the Symbolic Order, and the Real Order. Only through the resistance and struggle of the subject can we break the confusion of the subject's illusion in the Imaginary Order and the multiple suppression of the other and desire in the Symbolic Order, and finally find the true ego. This essay analyzes Munro's deep thinking on women's problem, which is that women should hold a positive psychology and development vision to complete identity construction and establish a harmonious and beautiful life community in modern society.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 teacher head, 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".