MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Osborne Collection of Early Children’s Books: Toronto Public Library’s Research Collection of Juvenile Material

2012· article· en· W2247312718 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leslie McGrath

Bibliographic record

VenuePapers Explorations into Children s Literature · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonourSubject (documents)DonationLibrary scienceLawHistoryClassicsSociologyMedia studiesPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

'Viewing in my mind your vast and enterprising country, it is a great pleasure to feel that Toronto possesses a storehouse of rare and valuable children’s books which should enable students from all quarters of the globe to study in comfort the development and also the effects on young people of the books that have been written for them over the ages.' Edgar Osborne, letter to Harry Campbell, Chief Librarian of Toronto Public Library. April 22, 1964. At the time he wrote this letter, Edgar Osborne (1890-1978) had just received a doctor of laws degree, honoris causa, from the University of Toronto, in recognition of his contribution to Canadian literary history and education through the gift of the collection subsequently named in his honour. The conferral had been the highlight of a colloquium, joined by guests from around the world, held to celebrate the donation, made fifteen years earlier. Osborne had cause to be satisfied, for already the original 2,000 items had increased by some thousands, through gifts and purchases; the Collection was properly housed and a subject expert, Judith St. John, had prepared a scholarly catalogue of its holdings.

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)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.023
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1720.044

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePapers Explorations into Children s LiteratureSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207