ԻՆՔՆՈՒԹՅԱՆ ԴՐՍԵՎՈՐՄԱՆ ԽՆԴԻՐՆԵՐՆ ՈՒ ՖԵՄԻՆԻՍՏԱԿԱՆ ԱԿՆԱՐԿՆԵՐՆ ԱԼԻՍ ՄԱՆՐՈՅԻ ԵՎ ՄԱՐԳԱՐԵԹ ԱԹՎՈՒԴԻ ՍՏԵՂԾԱԳՈՐԾՈՒԹՅՈՒՆՆԵՐՈՒՄ / THE IDENTITY ISSUES AND FEMINISTIC HINTS IN THE WORKS OF ALICE MUNRO AND MARGARET ATWOOD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this article is to represent the visible identity issues in the works of Alice Munro and Margaret Atwood as Canadian authors, as well as to focus on their female voices as examples of feminist literature. In their works, both authors strive to show their feminine emotions and feelings, trying to raise a number of questions related to identity and women. As Canadian literature experienced its existential crisis in the 20th century, there was a need to protect and give Canadian literature a greater voice. That is why the issues of preserving identity and creating its vision arose. And that was the reason why the best field of expression for Alice Munro and Margaret Atwood was literature, through which they tried to express themselves, thereby showing their feminist views. Through their works, the authors try not only to show certain questions and problems regarding the equality of women’s rights but also to offer their own solutions that can be useful in the concepts of feminist literature. Both Alice Monroe’s and Margaret Atwood’s literary works tend to reveal the inner emotions, conflicts, riots, and resulting intrapersonal manifestations of a woman as an individual.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".