MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393076705 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v14n4p51

Exposing Widow’s Psyche in a Fine Balance: A Study of Rohinton Mistry’s Widow Characters

2024· article· en· W4393076705 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
N. Mounisha, V. Vijayalakshmi

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSouth Asian Studies and Diaspora
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycheBalance (ability)Computer sciencePsychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indian writers including both male and female novelists generally utilise novels to reveal the psychological conditions of the female sex with the help of their dramatic personas. One such Indian writer is Rohinton Mistry, who unveils the mental states of women through his independent female characters, especially fictional female singletons. Among his numerous works, A Fine Balance is a notable piece that falls into this category. The novel is about the life struggles of the widow heroine Dina Dalal after the death of her husband. Apart from Dina, Mistry has used many widow characters who play minor roles in developing the storyline. The paper aims to exhibit the mental fluctuations of the fictional widows that comprise the widow protagonist Dina Dalal. The investigation with the help of the female characters uncovers the psychological oscillations of the widows due to their singlehood statuses. It unmasks the emotional transpositions, loneliness, fears, regrets, hopelessness and mental instabilities of the widows. The analysis avails the psychoanalytic Literary Theory to support its arguments and to obtain its objectives. With the aid of the select prose narrative, the research brings out Rohinton Mistry’s typical representation of widow characters to have psychological problems because of losing their husbands. Hence, the article projects that despite picturing the fictional widows as persons who are bold and liberating, Mistry has represented them to be psychologically vulnerable rather than presenting them as mentally strong and stable individuals.

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)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicSouth Asian Studies and DiasporaFrench-language works237,207