Motherly and feminist reflections in contemporary narratives written by women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The motherhood romanticization works as a means to control the bodies and reproduction in the patriarchal system, making it compulsory: building up the belief that women are only fulfilled after giving birth, also putting the mother's love as a means to exploit the act of caring, something that is not imposed on fathers. Although idealized, real motherhood women complain of exhaustion, solitude and lack of public policies and social support. The feminist movement must face motherhood as fundamental to the movement of freeing women, from the sexual and reproductive rights to the planning and division of tasks and mental overload. Race and social classes are also intertwined, being black women the most common victims of violent acts and their childs victims of violent acts. Contemporary female writers are watchful to these questions and desecrate motherhood in many narratives. This paper has the objective of bringing a feminist reflection about mothering, not faced as something natural and impository to all women, but as a process that involves a series of cultural and political questions, from the reading and discussion of female authors such as Adichie (2017), Collins (2019), hooks (2019 e 2020), Mendonça (2014), D’Ávilla (2019) and Gonzalez (2020) and from a host of narratives from female contemporary authors from Brazil, Canada, Caribbean and African countries like Atwood (2017), Condé (2020), Emecheta (2018), Evaristo (2016), Leite (2004), Luft (2012), Mukasonga (2017), Munro (2014), Ntshingila (2016) and Rezende (2014), which justifies the pertinence of the subject beyond its national borders.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".