The Concept of Space and Place in Children's and Young Adolescent Literature. A Comparative Analysis of Peter Pan, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and The Hunger Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For a long time, literary criticism mainly focused on temporality. Even though the space and place are almost always present in writing, they were less often studied. This thesis researches the concept of spatiality in children?s and young adult fiction and its meaning to experiencing the world. The first part presents an overview of scholars' works on spatiality, with a focus on Michel Foucault?s concept of heterotopia as presented in Of Other Spaces. The second part of the thesis is devoted to the textual analysis of three works of children?s and Young Adult fiction: Wendy and Peter by J.M. Barrie (1911), Harry Potter and the Philosopher?s Stone by J.K. Rowling (1998) and The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins (2008). To this aim, passages from the novels are analyzed and compared to each other. The main focus of the textual analysis is on the concept of spatiality, how it is present and presented in the books and how it relates to the development of the protagonists as fictional people. It shows that the authors of the three novels use space and place to give the reader additional contextual information about the fictional characters and to deepen their understanding about motivations and character traits. Often, protagonists? actions or emotions are mirrored in how they move through the space or how they are situated in it. The close reading with a focus on spatiality and heterotopias allows a deeper understanding of the spaces present in children?s and YA literature and the purpose they serve in the narrative. All three of the books feature spaces and places that can be interpreted as heterotopias, but I suggest that the arena in The Hunger Games, more than any other of the places, fulfills many of the requirements Michel Foucault laid out when he established the concepts of heterotopias.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".