MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126083869 · doi:10.20361/g2q599

Sass and Serendipity by J. Ziegler

2012· article· en· W2126083869 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kristine Moruzi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerendipityRomanceSensibilityArtSociologyArt historyPsychologyPsychoanalysisHistoryLiteraturePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ziegler, Jennifer. Sass and Serendipity. New York: Delacorte Press, 2011. Print. Based loosely on Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility, this book follows two very different sisters, the serious and sensible Gabriella (Gabby) and the younger, more romantic, Daphne. Both girls are reeling from their parents’ divorce and reduced financial circumstances and both deal with these problems in different ways. Gabby, firmly allied with her mother, blames her father for abandoning the family and rejects all notions of romantic love. Daphne idolises her father and believes that the boy of her dreams is waiting for her. When a crisis leaves the girls and their mother homeless, help comes from an unexpected source and both girls begin to see new possibilities in the people around them, especially two new suitors. This is a light, somewhat entertaining read, but both Gabby and Daphne are so self-centered and one-dimensional that the story quickly becomes tedious. Gabby is angry and mean to almost everyone around her, although her one friend Mule amazingly continues to tolerate her appalling behaviour. Daphne is so obsessed with romance that she is oblivious to the family concerns. Somehow, however, the girls find suitable boyfriends and this, more than anything else, causes them to become better sisters, daughters and friends. Recommended with reservations: 2 out of 4 starsReviewer: Kristine MoruziKristine Moruzi is a Grant Notley Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of English and Film Studies at the University of Alberta, where she is examining representations of girlhood in Canadian children's literature between 1840 and 1940.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.014

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
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 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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Deakin Review of Children s LiteratureSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207