MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Linguistic Analysis of Literary Narratives: A Different Approach to the Study of Women’s Emigration from Ukraine

2020· article· en· W4295214916 on OpenAlexaff
Olena Hlazkova

Bibliographic record

VenueSOCRATES · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Socio-Economic Development Trends
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmigrationNarrativeLinguisticsSociologyHistoryGender studiesLiteratureArtPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study aims to reveal how evaluative meanings shape the depiction of Ukrainian emigration and women emigrants in Ukrainian literature of the early 2000s by employing Appraisal Theory developed within the framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics and subjecting excerpts from the following five novels to an in-depth linguistic analysis: Usi dorohy vedut’ do Rymu by Olesia Halych, Shliub iz kukhlem Pil’zens’koho pyva by Lesia Stepovychka, Ia znaiu, shcho ty znaiesh, shcho ia znaiu by Irena Rozdobud’ko, Hastarbaiterky by Natalka Doliak, and Korotka istoriia traktoriv po-ukraiins’ky by Marina Lewycka. The authors employ various grammatical and lexical items to communicate their assessments of the emigrant women characters and the phenomenon of emigration from Ukraine. Appraisal Theory allows us to identify such linguistic realisations of evaluations and interpret authors’ attitudinal positions voiced or implied in text. This research is significant as the first study of its kind using Appraisal Theory to analyse literary texts written in Ukrainian thus expanding the theory’s reach and relevance. Additionally, employing linguistic techniques when assessing the depiction of women’s emigration and its agents enriches an analysis by providing a detailed and balanced perspective. The findings of this research contribute to the fields of literary studies, linguistics, and migration studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSOCRATESSame topicRegional Socio-Economic Development TrendsFrench-language works237,207