MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W101844144 · doi:10.20361/g2cc7h

Who Do I See? by S. Yoon

2011· article· en· W101844144 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Tami Oliphant

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreaturesVisual artsFish <Actinopterygii>ArtHistoryBiologyFisheryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yoon, Salina. Who Do I See? New York: Random House, 2011. Print. Identifying five adorable animals and remembering five eye-catching colours are the challenges for toddlers and preschool children in Yoon’s book, Who Do I See?. The colourful illustrations are simple two dimensional cartoon drawings of familiar creatures including a fish, a tiger, a turtle, a ladybug, and a parrot. The illustrations of the animals are framed, and partially hidden, by cleverly placed cut out windows. The cut out windows allow readers to feel the shiny foil on the animal illustration such as scales on a fish, and, because the rest of the animal is hidden until the reader flips the page, children can try identifying the animal by thinking about common animal colours and shapes such as the black spots and red wings found on a ladybug. The text does not rhyme but playful repetition of the question and of the typical colours found on these animals will keep children engaged. The thick cardboard pages ensure that the book is not easily damaged. This interactive, guessing-game book will assist children in learning about different animals and different colours. Recommended: 3 out of 4 stars Reviewer: Tami Oliphant Tami works as a research librarian at the University of Alberta Libraries and for the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Alberta. She earned her Master of Library and Information Studies from the University of Alberta and her doctorate from the University of Western Ontario. She has worked in academic libraries, public libraries, communications and planning, and as a sessional lecturer and researcher at the University of Alberta and the University of Western Ontario.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2660.317

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Deakin Review of Children s LiteratureSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207