Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article outlines the biographies of Iona (1923 –) and Peter (1918–1982) Opie and describes their aims, methods and theoretical orientation with particular reference to their work on children's play and games in the third quarter of the twentieth century. The account illustrates their separate identities as well as portraying the joint working relationship they built up as a husband-and-wife team. The Opies’ reputation as pioneer researchers into children's folklore in the UK and beyond derives from their publications, which have become classics in the field and widely read by a general audience as well as by academics and professionals. The Opies’ scholarship and its reception and impact are considered here. The article also describes the Opies’ archival collection, especially their ‘working papers’ and sound recordings, and highlights the importance of evaluating the Opies’ contribution in terms of their archival legacy, as well as their published works.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".