MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2223828275 · doi:10.4324/9781315756912

Challenging and Controversial Picturebooks

2015· book· en· W2223828275 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children's thoughts on challenging and controversial picturebooks Adults' thoughts on challenging and controversial picturebooks Part One: Challenging and controversial picturebooks: What are they and who are they for? 1. Picturebooks as Strange, Challenging and Controversial Texts Janet Evans (Independent Scholar, England) 2. The Scandal of the Commonplace: The Strangeness of Bestselling Picturebooks Perry Nodelman (The University of Winnipeg, Canada) 3. From Traditional Tales, Fairy Stories and Cautionary Tales to Controversial Visual Texts: Do we need to be Fearful? Sandra Beckett (Canada) 4. Who are these picturebooks for?: Controversial Picturebooks And The Question Of Audience Ase Marie Ommundsen (Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway) Part Two: Controversy and ambiguity in the art of the visual 5. Fusion Texts, the new kid on the block: What are they and where have they come from? Janet Evans (Independent Scholar, England) 6. These books made me really curious. How visual explorations shape young readers' taste Marnie Campagnaro ( University of Padua, Italy) 7. Beware of the fox! Emotion and Deception in Fox by Margaret Wild and Ron Brooks Bettina Kummerling-Meibauer & Jorg Meibauer (Germany) 8. Fear and Strangeness in Picturebooks: Fractured Fairy Tales, Graphic Knowledge and Teachers' Concerns Elizabeth Marshall (Simon Fraser University, Canada) Part Three: Creative, Critical and Philosophical Responses to Challenging Picturebooks 9. What's Real And What's Not: Playing With The Mind In Wordless Picturebooks Sandie Mourao (Independent Scholar, Portugal) 10. Who's afraid of the big bad wolf: Responses to the portrayal of wolves in picturebooks Kerenza Ghosh (University of Roehampton, England) 11. Filling the Gaps: Exploring the Writerly Metaphors in Shaun Tan's The Red Tree Sylvia Pantaleo (University of Victoria, Canada) 12. Could This Happen To Us?: Responding To Issues Of Migration In Picturebooks Janet Evans (Independent Scholar, England) Part Four Thoughts from a children's book publisher 13. The Legendary Klaus Flugge: Controversial picturebooks and their place in contemporary society Klaus Flugge in conversation with Janet Evans

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.202
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations74
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207