GENDER ROLE AND PERFORMATIVITY IN CAROL SHIELD'S UNLESS: A BUTLERIAN READING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is an attempt to investigate the work of a Canadian author, Carol Shields, and her book Unless. The novel can be defined as feminist debates on the social construction of femininity and gender roles. It questions the patriarchal power structures that shape people’s identities. There are female characters in the novel who are the embodiment of femininity based on patriarchal notions. The analysis is based on some approaches: a presentation of several characters and their impacts on the main protagonist; an investigation of how the main characters’ gender identity is constructed; and the presentation of a subversive performance of gender. Feminist Performativity, which is Butler’s main philosophy and is generally called Philosophy of performativity, would be the central idea of this study. The study argues that the gender performativity leads to the construction of identity and women have numerous challenges in the process of making their identity. These challenges of female members are mostly the ones imposed by society in attempt to normalize and assimilate the members into the established social conventions. This fact is criticized by Butlerian feminism that calls these issues as great misunderstandings. Butler asserts that misunderstanding of gender (masculine, feminine) is caused by seeing it as the result of sex (male, female) that is seen as the reason of tendency towards the opposite sex and disavowal of the same sex
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".