MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1488911849 · doi:10.26181/29397830

"Haunted" : Architectural Manifestations of Adult Phobias and Admonitions in the Haunted Houses of Children's and Young Adult Literature

2010· article· en· W1488911849 on OpenAlexaff
Duncan Olenick

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject matterMetaphorSubject (documents)RealmAestheticsAmbivalenceSet (abstract data type)PhobiasSemioticsPsychologySociologyPsychoanalysisHistoryArtEpistemologyLinguisticsPhilosophyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Architectural metaphors abound in children's and young adult literature, where haunted houses are employed by authors and illustrators to convey elaborate semiotics about anxieties, social dynamics, and domesticity. Grotesque and ghostly mansions can be found as subject matter in all age-level books and they commonly operate through the assumption that readers will accept them as legitimate and comprehensible settings. Such is the case with books featuring haunted houses, which generally portray a plethora of ambivalent characters set against an emotionally-complex domiciliary realm. Despite growing discourse surrounding supernatural-themed literature for young readers, there has been less focus on the messages that are perpetuated by the architectural representations within these works. Questions arise about what adults are communicating to young people through this subject matter and how this metaphor is constituted in visual, psychological, and cultural terms.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.017
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207