MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406216517 · doi:10.34293/english.v13i1.8377

Exploring the Journey of Self Identity and Women Empowerment in Patriarchal Society in Lucy Maud Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables

2024· article· en· W4406216517 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M Jeevitha, V Paul Thomas Raj

Bibliographic record

VenueShanlax International Journal of English · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentNarrativeSociologyGirlGender studiesIdentity (music)Rhetorical questionNegotiationMedia studiesAestheticsLiteraturePsychologyArtLawSocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lucy Maud Montgomery was born on November 30, 1874, in New London. She was a Canadian novelist, short story writer, and poet. One of her best novels, Anne of Green Gables, was a huge success. In this novel, Anne Shirley, an 11-year-old girl, is mistakenly sent to live with Marilla and Matthew Cuthbert, siblings who have planned to adopt a boy to help them with their farm, made up of the Canadian community of Avonlea. As she negotiates the difficulties of growing up in a patriarchal environment, the novel explores Anne’s journey of discovery as she navigates the challenges of growing up in a patriarchal society. This novel examines the interplay of communication theories within L.M. Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables, focusing on how Anne Shirley’s journey reflects concepts such as interpersonal communication, identity negotiation, and self-presentation. The narrative highlights how Anne’s rhetorical skills and ability to adapt her language foster connections and overcome societal barriers. By bridging the thematic elements of belonging, empowerment, and identity with communication theories, this study explores the broader implications of language in shaping relationships and self-perception in the Avonlea Community.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShanlax International Journal of EnglishSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207