MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386833898 · doi:10.4324/9781003253433-7

Has the Indian “Doll” Really Evolved?

2023· book-chapter· en· W4386833898 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Srideep Mukherjee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCulinary Culture and Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between the premiere of A Doll’s House (Copenhagen 1879) and the home/world binary of twenty-first-century middle-class India, there has only been doubtful evolution in a women’s position that is pitted between “cultural” tropes of conjugal commodification and individual aspirations for that elusive voice of their own. When social systems, legal institutions and economic indices are all replete with evidence to this effect; the source text still resonates with meaning across space and time. This chapter takes up three such stage representations—Abanti Chakrabarti’s Putuler Chithi (The Doll’s Letter 2005), Basab Pradhan’s A Doll’s House (2016), and Biplab Bandopadhyay’s Khelaghar (Playpen 2019) to contextualise questions on the Indian woman’s domestic/social agency, and her consequent emotive responses in the new millennium. While the first is a gynocritical mono-act that bridges semiotics of Ibsen and Tagore, the third prioritises urgency of gender equality in a corporatised neo-colonial social context, wherein theatre is perceived as a tool of sensitisation. Between them, the second, a Canadian diasporic production, picks upon womanhood as trammeled between liminal identities of an affluent “modern” woman inhabiting a questionable socio-economic space and of a perfect Indian housewife upholding cultural mores of the imagined homeland. Cumulatively, the chapter will interrogate the “liberalised” lives of urban Indian middle-class women by deconstructing their negotiations with the decolonised milieu.

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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.029
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.158 · 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
GenreOther

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 topicCulinary Culture and Tourism→French-language works237,207→