MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1580795649 · doi:10.20361/g27016

Ballerina Rosie by S. Ferguson

2013· article· en· W1580795649 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Trish Chatterley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalletGirlDanceDreamArtAppealArt historyVisual artsPsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ferguson, Sarah. Ballerina Rosie. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012. Print. The Duchess of York recounts the tale of Rosie Red Curls, a little girl who loves to dance and dreams of becoming a prima ballerina. When her mother takes her to her first ballet lesson, Rosie struggles with the steps and is the least graceful girl in class. Rosie becomes discouraged until one Saturday, she wakes to find a gift of red ballet slippers by her bed. She’s now able to dance beautifully. She thinks it is because of her shoes until her dance teacher tells her that she was always talented, she just needed to practice and build confidence. At some point, most little girls dream of becoming a famous ballerina and will be drawn to the book. Unfortunately, the story is uninspiring and a bit corny. The stated intended age range is 4 through 8 but the book is much too short and simplistic for most 7 and 8 year olds, though it may still appeal to younger girls. The moral about hard work paying off would likely not come through clearly for young girls. While the illustrations by Diane Goode are colourful and fun, they depict young girls en pointe performing steps that are much too advanced for their age. They are, however, typical ballet poses which is perhaps why they were used. Aspiring ballerinas would be better off reading tales of actual ballets, as Rosie does before bed, and viewing more realistic photographs of dancers. Not recommended: 1 out of 4 stars Reviewer: Trish ChatterleyTrish is a Public Services Librarian for the John W. Scott Health Sciences Library at the University of Alberta. In her free time she enjoys dancing, gardening, and reading books of all types.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2060.164

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 head0.259
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Deakin Review of Children s LiteratureSame topicDiversity and Impact of DanceFrench-language works237,207