MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1552179201

BOOK REVIEW ON YANN MARTEL’S “LIFE OF PI”

2013· article· en· W1552179201 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M A T K Y N -T H O M A S

Bibliographic record

VenueLANTERN:Journal on English Language, Culture and Literature · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicComics and Graphic Narratives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdventureStrengths and weaknessesFantasyFace (sociological concept)Front coverCover (algebra)Reading (process)AestheticsPsychoanalysisFront (military)LiteratureArtPsychologyHistoryArt historyPhilosophyLinguisticsSocial psychologyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Life of Pi is a fantasy adventure novel that is written by a Canadian authorYann Martel. There are some positive messages that are in this novel, such as how to face fear, how to fight to survive, and much more. There are three purposes of this writing: to give the summary of Life of Pi novel and biography of the author; to reviewLife of Pi’s intrinsic elements, the strengths, and the weaknesses of the book; and to review the cover analysis of the novel. The result shows that from the intrinsic elements that are analyzed in this novel, the writer concludes that those elements are the strengths of this novel. On the other hand,there are some contents of the novel that is boring and being a little weaknesses of this novel.In this study the writer analyzes the front cover of the novel from the illustration picture that is shown in the cover and the title on the cover. Besides, the writer also analyzes the back cover of the novel from the synopsis that is shown in there.In brief, this novel is good for the reader who loves reading. It is because this novel not only has interesting story but also has many positive messages that become the good lesson for the people who read it.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.014

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLANTERN:Journal on English Language, Culture and LiteratureSame topicComics and Graphic NarrativesFrench-language works237,207