MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254547138 · doi:10.3138/utq.79.2.838

Autism, Narrative, and Emotions: On Samuel Beckett's <i>Murphy</i>

2010· article· en· W4254547138 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ato Quayson

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSamuel Beckett and Modernism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHERONarrativeMetonymyAutismRepresentation (politics)PremisePsychologyInterpretation (philosophy)EpistemologyCriticismAmbiguityCausationRhetorical questionPsychoanalysisPhilosophyLiteratureLinguisticsMetaphorDevelopmental psychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay explores Samuel Beckett's novel Murphy in order to illustrate the ways in which cognitive disorders such as autism bring to the foreground the links between illness, emotions, and narrative. Starting from the premise that the representation of autistic spectrum disorders presents specific problems for literary interpretation, I suggest that Murphy represents autism both at the level of the eponymous hero's characterization and through the discursive and rhetorical disposition of the text as a whole. I outline the concept of a metonymic circle in order to map out the ways in which, towards the end of the novel, the text's inherently realist orientation is disrupted by a series of discursive transpositions between Murphy and Mr Endon, himself a mild schizophrenic. I draw provisional conclusions about the differences between the literary representation and criticism of illness and the process that pertains in real-life medical diagnosis, while also touching upon some implications for interdisciplinarity.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.026
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicSamuel Beckett and ModernismFrench-language works237,207