MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1837665863 · doi:10.26181/29397461

Miniature Adults Compel the Growth of Children

2005· article· en· W1837665863 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Groberman

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBossObject (grammar)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyChild developmentSociologyAestheticsArtPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A child is the boss of his or her toys, and may choose to play the role of parent, colonel, or god to these inanimate things that are smaller than he or she. He or she may take care of them or destroy them. But how does the child's experience change when the small object, the six-inch humanoid figure is not an inanimate toy but a living human being? This essay looks at several books that examine this situation, including The Borrowers, The Twelve and the Genii, Mistress Masham's Repose and The Indian in the Cupboard. In all of these cases the response of the child is one of emotional growth. Because they are different ages, the growth is not the same for each, but what they share is a development over time of increased sense of responsibility, attempts to understand what that means, some trials and failures, and ultimately maturation.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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