Critical Feminist Discourse and Authorial Identity in Contemporary Women’s Writers: Woolf, Daneshvar, and Farrokhzad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literature and culture are a propitious way to connect human life and the world and feminism is a universal affair and not to be limited to a society, geographical region, or time. Comparative literature is also a sphere of literary study in which the works of two/more two writers from different languages and nationalities are compared with one another and acts as a social, cultural, and literary brigade and cycle. This article explores feminism and femininity with an image of authorial identity in three selected modern women writers’ works: Virginia Woolf, Simin Daneshvar, and Forough Farrokhzad from the schools of thought and points of view, which affected the writers’ thoughts. The survey and analysis of their works report that the sharing point between feministic literature and the schools of thought lies in the attempt to revive women’s rights, portray women’s oppression, and introduce their innocence as well as their authorial identity and position in a patriarchal system regarding the sort of approach to human and life. The present study extends a synthesis of feminism and realism techniques to investigate women’s status within these women’s writings. The results show an independent authorial identity, feminine attitudes, realist perspective, existentialist thoughts and human-centered view in a patriarchal society are authorial recycling forms among Daneshvar, Farrokhzad, and Woolf’s artwork borderless.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".