MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250543324 · doi:10.4324/9781315708577-5

The music of dead sisters: a feminist comparison of two folktales about singing bones and reeds

2017· book-chapter· en· W4250543324 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cheryl Stobie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingingArtAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article compares and contrasts two folktales. The first is the traditional ballad, ‘The twa sisters’, collected by Francis J. Child in the 19 th century. The Canadian folksinger Loreena McKennitt compiled a variant of this, called ‘The bonny swans’. Many of these ballads feature a musical instrument composed of the bones of the slain sister, which sings the name of her killer, who is her heartless sister. The second folktale is ‘The singing reed’, a story collected in Namibia by Sigrid Schmidt. This tale recounts the story of a girl who dies due to the cruelty of her peers. Some of her blood splashes onto a reed, which sings to her brothers. No claim is made for any direct connection between the two tales; however, transcultural traffic entailed the exchange of various stories, both in written and oral form. Using a feminist perspective, the effects created in both of the folktales are analysed, including the representations of family life, the use of oral features and music, the references to magic talismans and the yearning to transcend the boundaries of death. The consonances and pertinent differences between the two narratives, highlighting their significance socially, politically and spiritually, are explored.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.024
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207