MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412778961 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v16n1p163

Decolonizing Travel Narratives: A Feminist Perspective in Cate Kennedy's Sing and Don’t Cry

2025· article· en· W4412778961 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Asma Sakit Alshammari

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTravel Writing and Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)NarrativeSociologyAestheticsGender studiesComputer scienceArtLiteratureArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines Cate Kennedy's Sing and Don't Cry (2005) as a postcolonial female travel narrative, with a particular focus on how cross-cultural encounters subvert and reform colonial ideologies. The study uses qualitative, descriptive-analytical approach to examine the influence of direct engagement with Mexican culture on Kennedy’s conception of the Self and Other. The paper draws upon a postcolonial framework, including Orientalism (Said, 2003), Subaltern Theory (Spivak, 1988), and Hybridity (Bhabha, 2004), to explore how cross-cultural encounters contest dominant colonial attitudes. This paper uncovers different themes embedded within the narrative, including respect for the culture and traditions of the Other, the amplification of marginalized voices, and travel as a quest for identity to explore how direct encounters with Mexican culture influences her perspective on her homeland, Australia. Sing and Don't Cry demonstrates how postcolonial female travel narratives can transcend colonial and Eurocentric conventions into a more comprehensive and rich discourse in postcolonial travel literature. This study contributes to a greater appreciation of the female perspective in the travel writing genre.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.027
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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 venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicTravel Writing and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207