Bibliographic record
Abstract
Richards, Natalie D. Six Months Later. Naperville, Ill: Sourcebooks Fire, 2013. Print.Sixteen-year-old Chloe goes to sleep in study group one May and wakes up six months later with everything she could have wanted: unbelievable SAT scores, popularity, and the boyfriend of her dreams. What she doesn't have is any memory about how she got there. As her memories return, the answers only become more clouded and more chilling. Set in current day southern USA, this story explores the ethics of consent and foreshadows the outcomes of living in a medicated society.Chloe has big dreams but only a small chance of reaching them. Her circle of friends is equally minuscule, but when that circle includes Maggie, it’s all she needs. Waking up to find that she has achieved everything she could have dreamed of rings hollow when she realizes it’s also been at the expense of their friendship. And why is she strangely repulsed by her godlike boyfriend, Blake, while just a glance from bad boy Adam Reed is enough to send her spinny? Chloe struggles to determine what has happened to her while the only person she feels she can trust isn't talking to her anymore. The battle becomes more desperate when Chloe begins to believe that her fate is inextricably linked with a former classmate who has disappeared.The story is written with an authentic voice, and realistically depicts the complicated relationships between Chloe, her parents, and her friends. Although the plot is somewhat predictable and at times leaves the reader questioning the characters’ motivations, it engages the reader through the anticipation of Chloe’s gradually-revealed memories. This psychological thriller is the debut work of author Natalie Richards and was a winner of the 2013 YALSA Teen’s Top Ten Award.This book would likely appeal most to young adults who enjoy contemporary realistic fiction, have an interest in psychology or enjoy suspenseful novels.Recommended: 3 out of 4 starsReviewer: Kelsi McGillivrayKelsi McGillivray teaches grade 3 at an international school in Kathmandu, Nepal. She is currently working on her Masters of Education in teacher-librarianship and aspires to become the school librarian in the future. She enjoys reading, hiking, and adventures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.410 | 0.299 |
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".