MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058387 · doi:10.1086/603196

Controversial Books in the Public Library: A Comparative Survey of Holdings of Gay-Related Children's Picture Books

2000· article· en· W2058387 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Library Quarterly · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamChecklistDivergence (linguistics)PublishingLibrary scienceSociologyQueerPublic opinionHistoryRepresentation (politics)Media studiesPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceLinguisticsLawPoliticsGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines an area of book publishing that has generated some controversy for public libraries. A checklist of thirty English-language children's picture books with gay characters or gay-related contents is presented. "Picture book" is broadly defined to include highly illustrated works of various degrees of difficulty which are directed to an audience aged from approximately four to eleven. Titles were checked against the catalogs of 101 public library systems to determine number of titles and number of copies of titles held. Libraries were drawn from each of the fifty American states and ten Canadian provinces, with some representation also from New Zealand, Australia, and Britain. Comparisons of holdings among library systems show large differences. Similarly, comparisons among titles show some works to be much more widely held than others, and, in support of Serebnick's earlier findings, there is a pattern of increase in the number of holding libraries when there is an increase in number of mainstream library journal reviews. The rating scheme applied to the reviews from six mainstream journals offers some guidance to the reader and highlights divergence of critical opinion with regard to some titles.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.264 · 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