MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W139498534 · doi:10.14264/107196

Whose story is this anyway? : an excerpt from the novel manuscript Never going back and the critical paper "whose story is this anyway? : exploring point of view in the novel"

2005· dissertation· en· W139498534 on OpenAlex
Antonia Banyard

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe University of Queensland · 2005
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocalizationSection (typography)Tragedy (event)SilencePoint (geometry)HistoryLiteratureSociologyArtNarrativeAestheticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thesis is made up of the creative project and a critical paper. The creativenproject is the opening section of the manuscript, Never Going Back, ancontemporary novel which rotates through the minds of three friends. In thensummer of 1999, the friends reunite in Nelson BC, Canada for the birth of a child.nThe occasion forces them to explore a tragedy in their past and its implications forntheir present and future lives. n The critical is an exploration of point of view in the novel through annexamination of my own writing process as well as techniques used in twonpublished novels, Music and Silence by Rose Tremain and Saints of Big Harbour bynLynn Coady. My particular emphasis is on how writers successfully employnmultiple points of view and variable focalization.n

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.188 · 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