MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389632290 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-32111-5_15

Fiction as a Spider’s Web? Ananse and Gender in Karen Lord’s Speculative Folktale Redemption in Indigo

2023· book-chapter· en· W4389632290 on OpenAlexaff
Tegan Zimmerman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Sexualities and LGBTQ+ Issues
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiminalityTricksterDiasporaHistoryXhosaNeocolonialismLiteratureArtGender studiesColonialismAnthropologySociologyAestheticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Karen Lord’s speculative folktale Redemption in Indigo (2010) engages the other-wordly or un-worldly to explore Caribbean social justice issues such as race, gender, and class inequality. Demonstrating her trickster powers, Lord merges folk gods and hero(ines) from different African traditions, for example Akan, Ashanti, Xhosa, and Karamba, with those found in Caribbean cultures. This syncretic textual strategy not only emphasizes the subversive, liminal qualities of both Ananse, the African-Caribbean folk figure, and Anansesem in challenging colonial metanarratives of time and space that have erased, denigrated, or falsely represented the African-Caribbean woman but also critiques masculinist versions of Ananse and traditionally male-dominated Anansesem. By contrast, Lord’s antipatriarchal, anticolonial account foregrounds Ananse’s feminine qualities and empowered female figures: the nonbinary storyteller, the heroine Paama, and the goddess Atabey. In doing so, Lord offers a new futuristic, feminocentric Ananse story whose weblike concentric patterns interweave the African past with the Caribbean present, the ancestral homeland with the diaspora.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 topicAfrican Sexualities and LGBTQ+ IssuesFrench-language works237,207