MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7161974398 · doi:10.82308/16618

Borders of becoming : an examination into absence and desire for self and subjectivity in Anne Carson's Men in the off hours and Gail Scott's Main brides

2004· dissertation· en· W7161974398 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erin Wunker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShort Stories in Global Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubjectivityPresentation (obstetrics)Subject (documents)SelfFeminist theoryPosition (finance)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the way in which two contemporary Canadian women writers, Anne Carson and Gail Scott, integrate subjective theory into two of their respective texts (Carson's Men In the Off Hours, and Scott's Main Brides). This study rejects the presentation of a single protagonist and instead focuses heavy emphasis upon the presentation of subjective experiments. In this paper the subjects in Men In the Off Hours and Main Brides are examined through the desires they exhibit for the absent other---that which the subject perceives he/she does not have---as central to his/her own conception of him/her self. The paper first acknowledges that subjective theory, the quest for the self, has maintained a central position in scholarly studies. It then proceeds to disseminate and critique Lacanian subjective theory thereby setting the stage for close readings of Carson's Men In the Off Hours through theorist Julia Kristeva's notion of abjection, and of Scott's Main Brides through Jacques Derrida's theory of the borderline. The paper closes by questioning the possibility of a fully realized subject.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.032
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicShort Stories in Global Literature→French-language works237,207→