MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119228808 · doi:10.20360/g2201g

Creating Characters with Diversity in Mind: Two Canadian Authors Discuss Social Constructs of Disability in Literature for Children

2011· article· en· W2119228808 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Beverley Brenna

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Literacy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationNarrativeDiversity (politics)PsychologyDisability studiesSociologyAestheticsGender studiesLiteratureComputer scienceArtArtificial intelligenceAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children’s authors have not traditionally developed characters with disabilities to include a multiplicity of traits, crafting instead static, uni-dimensional portrayals. While books with depictions of characters with identified exceptionalities have appeared onbookstore shelves and awards’ lists, these characters have generally been relegated to subsidiary positions, assisting other main characters in their growth and development without demonstrating parallel learning. Two Canadian authors discuss their conceptualization of characters with special needs, exploring personal narratives which have informed their work and concluding that children require book collections which explore multi-levelled characters, encouraging readers to discover real life heroes within and among themselves.

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)0.004
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0620.018
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage and LiteracySame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207