MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378804315 · doi:10.35516/hum.v50i2.4934

Bearing Witness: Gender, Fundamentalism, and the Construction of History in Margaret Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale and Azar Nafisi’s Reading Lolita in Tehran

2023· article· en· W4378804315 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rabab Taha Al Kassasbeh

Bibliographic record

VenueDirasat Human and Social Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative Fiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTestimonialPatriarchyDystopiaFundamentalismDepictionOppressionSociologyNarrativeLiteratureGender studiesWitnessPoliticsArtLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: This paper examines the feminist testimonial depiction of patriarchy and fundamentalism in The Handmaid's Tale (1985) by the Canadian writer Margaret Atwood and Reading Lolita in Tehran (2004) by the Iranian writer Azar Nafisi. Methods:. This paper incorporates diverse ideas about dystopian literature, testimony, and feminist criticism by situating the individual in communion with a collective experience marked by marginalization, oppression, or resistance. Results: Each book possesses its own narrative conventions of space, time, and character. While The Handmaid's Tale is a feminist dystopia which imagines a future United States governed by a totalitarian theocracy, Reading Lolita in Tehran is a realistic account of a university professor about her life during the fundamentalist revolution in The Republic of Iran. Conclusions: What these apparently two disparate texts have in common is that they attack patriarchy in all its forms, giving testimonial voice to the otherwise voiceless, with hope of promoting political change in contemporary societies.

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)0.004
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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.034
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDirasat Human and Social SciencesSame topicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative FictionFrench-language works237,207