MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415406144 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v16n2p191

Marginalization of Disability as Alterity in George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire

2025· article· W4415406144 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hayder Gebreen, Ravichandran Vengadasamy, Jeslyn Sharnita Amarasekera

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
KeywordsAlterityGeorge (robot)EPICNarrativeFantasyInclusion (mineral)Politics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores George R. R. Martin’s high epic fantasy saga, A Song of Ice and Fire, through the intersecting lenses of postcolonial alterity and the social model of disability. It concentrates on two key disabled figures—Tyrion Lannister and Bran Stark—considering disability not merely as a physical or medical state, but as a condition defined and intensified by social exclusion, prejudice, and entrenched cultural values. Using qualitative textual analysis across all five published volumes, the discussion focuses on three interrelated themes: marginalization, inclusion and participation, and autonomy. The analysis shows that although Martin subverts certain genre conventions by granting disabled characters political authority, narrative presence, and symbolic weight, he also employs compensatory traits—such as heightened intelligence or supernatural abilities—to explain their centrality. By exposing these contradictions, the study argues that fantasy fiction can simultaneously disrupt and reproduce ableist narratives, offering alternative insights into questions of power, identity, and the human body while contributing to wider conversations on the portrayal of disability in literature.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

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 topicContemporary Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207