MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408989543 · doi:10.22161/ijeel.4.2.7

Voices of the Nonhuman: Posthuman Ecologies in Atwood’s Surfacing

2025· article· en· W4408989543 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Surabhi Chandan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Language Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative Fiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosthumanSociologyPosthumanismAestheticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the posthuman and ecofeminist dimensions of Margaret Atwood’s Surfacing, with a focus on how nonhuman elements—specifically the landscape, animals, and water—emerge as active agents rather than passive backdrops. Drawing on theoretical frameworks from ecofeminism and posthumanism, including the works of Rosi Braidotti, Jane Bennett, and Donna Haraway, the analysis demonstrates how Atwood reconfigures human subjectivity by centering relationality, interdependence, and nonhuman agency. Through the protagonist’s psychological and physical immersion in the Canadian wilderness, Surfacing interrogates Cartesian dualisms such as human/nature, male/female, and reason/emotion. The forest becomes a sentient witness; the lake, a womb-like site of memory and truth; and animals, mirrors of human violence and empathy. As the protagonist sheds the layers of her culturally imposed identity, she enters into a liminal space where boundaries between species and selves collapse, enabling a posthuman reawakening grounded in ecological consciousness. The novel critiques patriarchal, capitalist systems that commodify both women and nature, while offering a vision of subjectivity rooted in reciprocity, embodiment, and non-dominance. This reading positions Surfacing not only as a feminist and environmental narrative but as a prescient text that anticipates contemporary discourses on multispecies ethics and the Anthropocene. Ultimately, Atwood invites us to listen to the voices of the nonhuman world—and in doing so, reimagine what it means to live ethically and sustainably within a shared planetary ecology.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0250.023
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.288 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English Language Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL)→Same topicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative Fiction→French-language works237,207→