MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2036245974 · doi:10.1353/ail.2006.0035

A Generous Friend

2006· article· en· W2036245974 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ripley S. Hugo

Notice bibliographique

RevueStudies in American Indian Literatures · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEducational Leadership and Practices
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPicnicFriendshipBrotherArt historySupperHistoryArtLawSociologyPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A Generous Friend Ripley Hugo James and Lois Welch were fast friends of Richard Hugo. When I married Dick, they welcomed my children and me into that friendship. We were neighbors on the same street too. Over the years my children ran down to Jim and Lois with their problems. Lois taught Melissa about sewing; Jim wrote Matt a recommendation for college. One Christmas season, Jim went with them to bring back a tree for each of our houses. Lois and Jim became our extended family, and after Dick’s death in 1982, they helped me edit Dick’s essays. I remember how calmly Jim insisted that I could learn to use a computer when I was sure I could not. He took the time to bring me his used computer, set it up, and then painstakingly show me how to work it. I had to measure up because he was not a friend I wanted to disappoint. I remember too a summer night out in our backyard under the poplar trees. A bunch of us were sitting on benches around the picnic table after supper, drinking beer and talking. Jim was across the table from me, talking with Melissa and her latest boyfriend. Some moments they were both talking to Jim at once, all three faces shining in the candlelight. Jim often nodded, listened in his intent way, and made some pithy comment. Suddenly, the young man called Jim “Governor,” and the name stuck. Whenever in the years to come Melissa addressed Jim as “Governor,” he accepted with a slight smile, as if he considered the honor his due. * * * In 1983 when Matt, only twenty-two, was hospitalized in Seattle, [End Page 27] Washington, for cancer treatments, he looked out the window at the steady rain one day and said suddenly, “Mom, I haven’t done shit.” I wanted to cry out “No!” Instead, I told him he had, that he had written good poems, that maybe he could use this time to revise them and put them together as a manuscript. He seized the idea. I brought his poems to him from our home in Montana. Every day that he could, he worked on the poems and completed his manuscript. When he thought it was good enough, he said shyly that he would send it to Jim to read. Jim read the manuscript and called back within a week. I took the phone call for Matt to say that he was in treatment that afternoon and could not come to the phone. Jim asked me to tell Matt that his poems were good, that he liked them a lot. “Tell him,” Jim said, “I think he writes like an Indian.” Matt’s spirits were lifted for the first time in months. On one visit, Lois and Jim brought a venison steak for Matt, a gift from Montana he relished. After the first of that year, Jim came to teach a semester at the University of Washington. Out of his warm concern for Matt, Jim came to talk to Matt several times a week. In those last hard months for Matt, Jim talked about the background of the novel he was writing, Fools Crow. Jim took Matt far from the hospital works in those hours. When the treatments were finished without good results, it was time to take Matt home. The morning we were to leave, I was delayed in traffic. I walked into Matt’s room to find Jim on his knees, tying Matt’s shoelaces for him, smiling and talking as he did. * * * My family had had a cabin in the South Fork of the Teton River, west of Choteau, Montana, since 1937. Lois and Jim joined us there for many good times. They came to know the people with whom my brother and I had grown up. These people were the descendants of the Métis—French/Chippewa Cree—who had emigrated from Manitoba to settle in the canyon in the 1870s and 1880s. Lois and Jim very graciously came with us to visit the Bruno family one autumn day. The Métis family felt honored to meet Jim, whom they knew as the author [End...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,285
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,952

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0120,002
Communication savante0,0110,008
Science ouverte0,0010,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,2850,247

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,049
Tête enseignante GPT0,430
Écart entre enseignants0,381 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueStudies in American Indian LiteraturesMême sujetEducational Leadership and PracticesTravaux en français237 207