MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126576312 · doi:10.1017/s1744552305004027

Adolescence, autonomy and Harry Potter: the child as decision-maker

2005· article· en· W2126576312 on OpenAlexaff
Shauna Van Praagh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Law in Context · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWizardHarry potterAutonomyArt historyWizard of ozArtLawPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like all babies, Harry Potter was born vulnerable. Like most babies, he was cared for and loved by those closest to him. When Harry was still an infant, however, the most horrible thing imaginable happened. His parents were killed by Voldemort; in turn, the evil wizard turned his murderous wrath on baby Harry. But Harry was too strong for Voldemort. Without realising it, he destroyed Voldemort’s powers and survived with only a jagged scar on his forehead. Harry Potter may have been vulnerable. But he was also capable of directing the history of the entire wizard world.

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)0.006
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.024
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Law in ContextSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207