Restructuring the Lawrence image : dismissing misogyny and accepting feminism / by Pamela Stadden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been various attacks upon Lawrence's literary \nreputation. Lawrence's representation of women is perhaps the most \ncriticised aspect of his work, with formal criticism beginning as \nearly as 1953 with Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex. Some \ncritics even recognize John Middleton Murry's disparaging comments \nabout Lawrence and women in Son of Woman as early feminist \ncriticism (Balbert,4). However, the point of integration between \nfeminist criticism and the Lawrence text is not nearly so important \nas the intense debate that has arisen concerning Lawrence and \nfeminism. Lawrence criticism up until the 1980's has generally \nrepresented him as a misogynist writer. Only within the last few \nyears has there been a resurgence of Lawrence philosophy through \ncomplimentary readings of Lawrence texts. I believe that some of \nthe critics mentioned in this study--Blanchard, Simpson, MacLeod, \nPaglia--fall into this category, which is one of compassion and \nrespect. Blanchard's "Love and Power: A Reconsideration of Sexual \nPolitics in Lawrence", Simpson's D.H. Lawrence and Feminism, \nMacLeod's Lawrence's Men and Women and Paglia's Vamps and Tramps \nare included in this study. It should be noted that this \nresurgence is not a complete return to the values of the fifties, \nwhen male and female roles were clearly defined, a fact most \nnotably demonstrated by Graham Hough in The Dark Sun. The readings \nare, instead, an acknowledgement of the male position, while yet \nretaining a level of faithfulness to feminism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".