MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409476626 · doi:10.53103/cjlls.v5i2.206

Deprivation, Frustration, Jealousy, Vindictiveness, Four Destroyed Lives and Baby Koachamma in Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things

2025· article· en· W4409476626 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Language and Literature Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSouth Asian Cinema and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJealousyFrustrationPsychologyPsychoanalysisSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arundhati Roy's family drama The God of Small Things (1997) has several women characters who represent typical Indian women.Among them some are tortured, some abuse others.Patriarchy, ill-treatment towards the 'Untouchables,' and the helplessness of married women are the center points of this celebrated novel.It not only portrays the struggle of women in the male-dominated conservative society but also shows how women can cause suffering to other women and men.In this novel women of three generations are discussed.Baby Kochamma belongs to the first generation, who is deprived, toxic, jealous, mean, manipulative, selfish, cruel, and revengeful.Her real name is Navomi Ipe.Roy's debut novel has dealt with the sufferings of the 'Untouchables' and the divorced women through the characters of Ammu and Velutha.This novel mainly highlights the predicaments of a divorced woman, Ammu, who wants to live a new life with her secret lover Velutha.Unfortunately, she becomes prey to her aunt Baby Kochamma, who is deprived of love, home, and family.This deprivation makes her jealous, frustrated, and vindictive to Ammu, her lover Velutha, and the twins Rahel and Eshtha.This paper aims to find out the causes of Ammu, Velutha, and her twin children Rahel and Estha's sufferings and destruction through the character analysis of Baby Kochamma.

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)0.000
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Language and Literature StudiesSame topicSouth Asian Cinema and CultureFrench-language works237,207