Where is the God of Seeing Today? – Reading the Story of Hagar from a Postcolonial Feminist Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the accounts of Hagar found in Genesis 16 and 21 that are intertwined with those of Sarah and Abraham’s. It describes three lenses through which postcolonial feminists read Hagar’s story, namely intersectionality, feminism, and post-colonialism before reading Hagar’s story through the lens of mail-order brides. The introduction and Chapter 1 briefly describe the work of biblical feminism, postcolonial feminism in particular. Chapter 2 reads the Hagar story alongside experiences of ‘foreign brides’ in Taiwan. Current research on these brides shows how in spite of their experiences of discrimination, they are not powerless victims of their circumstances but rather actively counter injustice using a variety of strategies. This research illuminates Hagar’s story and elevates her. However, when Hagar’s story is read within the canonical context, her importance is diminished. Theories about the formation of Genesis help to explain how and why this marginalization of Hagar happens.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".