MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1545212680 · doi:10.20360/g2h01h

Characters with Disabilities in Contemporary Novels for Children: A Portrait of Three Authors in a Framework of Canadian Texts

2011· article· en· W1545212680 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Beverley Brenna

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Literacy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronotopePortraitRelation (database)Space (punctuation)Frame (networking)SociologyLiteracyAdaptation (eye)Gender studiesPsychologyHistoryLiteratureLinguisticsArtArt historyPedagogyComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study of 50 contemporary Canadian novels for children and young adults explores patterns and trends regarding the construction of characters with disabilities, becoming a frame for the portraits of three Canadian authors, including a self-portrait. An adaptation of the Bakhtinian notion of the chronotope, applied to literary theory, provides a lens within which aspects of time and space are identified in relation to the internal chronotope of these characterizations, as well as in relation to the external chronotope of particular authors’ iterations, within their work, of actual space and time. A conceptual framework of critical literacy is used to highlight implications for including as classroom resources, texts about characters with disabilities.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0390.029
Scholarly communication0.0130.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage and LiteracySame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207