MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409503968 · doi:10.22364/bjellc.15.2025.05

Ecology of Self: woman’s self-discovery in Margaret Atwood’s <i>Surfacing</i>

2025· article· en· W4409503968 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sandra Mešková

Bibliographic record

VenueBaltic Journal of English Language Literature and Culture · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative Fiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcologyEnvironmental ethicsArtPhilosophyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper discusses the problem of a woman’s self-perception in the environment degraded by patriarchal power relations and the pressures of contemporary consumer society, as depicted in Margaret Atwood’s novel Surfacing (first published in 1972). Atwood’s extensive and diverse writing is characterised by themes such as Canadian national and cultural identity, history, human rights, new humanism, ecological thinking, feminism, and issues of feminine identity. Women characters in Atwood’s writing are affected by the brutality, blindness, and deadlock created by imperial, patriarchal, and ethnocentric power structures. Nevertheless, they are portrayed as capable of creative self-expression and rational self-reflection. Consequently, texts depicting a woman’s self-discovery are of special significance in Atwood’s writing. This is particularly evident in Surfacing, where the heroine engages in introspection regarding her family’s genealogy, traces the imposed deformations of her experience, seeks the foundations of authentic feminine experience, and ultimately gains insight into her transformed perception of herself and her environment. The process of self-discovery in Atwood’s novel is analysed in the framework of the French feminist school of écriture féminine, the theoretical perspectives of Alice Jardine and Rita Felski, as well as cultural 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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 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 venueBaltic Journal of English Language Literature and CultureSame topicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative FictionFrench-language works237,207