MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361856807 · doi:10.3138/jeunesse-2022-0030

Textual Instability around Gendered and Sexual Violence in Stephenie Meyer’s <i>Twilight</i> and <i>Midnight Sun</i>

2022· article· en· W4361856807 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Olive

Bibliographic record

VenueJeunesse Young People Texts Cultures · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMidnightTwilightBELLARomanceConstruct (python library)SociologyGender studiesAestheticsPsychoanalysisLiteraturePsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight alongside the partial, leaked PDF and authorized book of Midnight Sun using textual studies approaches to analyzing multiple versions of a text. These methods are coupled with feminist media effects theory to consider the significance of textual variants in Meyer’s representations of sexual and gendered violence in teenage romantic relationships. The international notoriety of Twilight has afforded her the opportunity to respond to commentary, critiques, and adulation from readers, fans, critics, and film adaptations, as well as to react to evolving feminist zeitgeists. Her multiple, publicly available rewritings of the same story could be viewed as one such response. These include Life and Death (2015), the Midnight Sun PDF (2008) and book (2020), in addition to spin-offs like The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner (2010). This analysis across retellings of the Twilight story considers variations in representations of what many critics have articulated as the male protagonist Edward’s abusive attitudes and behaviours toward the female protagonist Bella. It elucidates change and continuity in these representations and identifies a trajectory of increasingly misogynistic attitudes and behaviours expressed by Edward’s character. The article concludes that the availability of multiple versions of the story offers readers, fans, and educators an unusual opportunity to understand Edward as a literary construct and to engage further with representations of abuse in relationships.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJeunesse Young People Texts CulturesSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207