MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W178579044 · doi:10.20361/g2zp54

I Can Brush My Teeth by S. M. Johanson

2014· article· en· W178579044 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Trish Chatterley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNephew and nieceSisterToddlerPicture booksPsychologyPublishingRepresentation (politics)Visual artsDevelopmental psychologySociologyArtLiteraturePoliticsLinguisticsAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Johanson, Sarah Margaret. I Can Brush My Teeth. Montreal: Chouette Publishing, 2013. Print board book.For almost 25 years, preschoolers have been delighted by stories of four-year old Caillou. The French Canadian series was initiated by author Christine L’Heureux in an effort to illustrate everyday experiences in a child’s life and how to cope under various circumstances. Child psychologists have typically been consulted in the development of the stories and this book is no exception, drawing on the expertise of child psychologist Francine Nadeau. Pediatric dentist Dr. Hélène Buithieu was also consulted to ensure accurate representation of proper oral health practices.If the average toddler is anything like my three-year old niece, they will love this book! We read it six times over the course of a day. Caillou is growing up and wants to brush his teeth on his own without help from his parents. The story instructs the child to brush in little circles all around the mouth. While the story is a bit repetitive for an adult, this does not appear to be an issue with children and reinforces proper technique as recommended by dentists.Children familiar with the Caillou television program might question why the parents look quite different from the same characters as presented on the show. My niece also astutely observed, “Where’s Rosie?” since the two-year old sister does not make an appearance. The story is simple, the illustrations colourful, and will hopefully encourage children to have fun brushing their teeth by themselves. However, you may have to buy your child sparkly toothpaste so they can brush like Caillou!Recommended: 3 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1930.146

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 head0.341
Teacher spread0.329 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Deakin Review of Children s LiteratureSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207