MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297948287

The Meek One. A Fantastic Story. Fyodor Dostoevsky. an Annotated Russian Reader

2013· article· en· W2297948287 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julia Mikhailova

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Slavonic Papers · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRussian Literature and Bakhtin Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParagraphVocabularyReading (process)FyodorLinguisticsComputer scienceSection (typography)LiteratureHistoryArtPhilosophyWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Julia Titus, ed. The Meek One. A Fantastic Story. Fyodor Dostoevsky. An Annotated Russian Reader. Illustrations by Kristen Robinson. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011. xv, 154 pp. $20.00, paper.The Meek One is a Russian reader geared towards intermediate and advanced learners of Russian. Key features of this reader include author's suggestions on how to use the book; cultural, historical and linguistic commentary in English necessary to comprehend the text; vocabulary exercises; oral and written assignments; vocabulary quizzes, and an answer key. The reader has extensive annotation of texts and glosses in the margins, which should enhance the reading process and make it more enjoyable. The glosses provide translation as well as some grammatical information (for example, aspect, case governance).The beginning of the reader provides students a brief biography of Fedor Dostoevskii, the origin of the plot, and the work's main ideas as well as notes on the main characters. The story itself is eighty-four pages long divided into ten chapters. Each paragraph is numbered; the entire text and exercises have stresses. Double-spacing of the text makes it easy to read and allows the student space to write notes in-between lines. Several illustrations accompany the text and can be used as interpretive preor post-reading activities.The chapters are followed by a section Review and which offers comprehension questions (called Questions for Discussion), work with vocabulary (Active Vocabulary), and a section with oral and written exercises geared towards the practice of the active vocabulary. As a guide for comprehension the author asks students to read questions for discussion prior to reading the text. I would suggest that students study the active vocabulary section prior to reading the corresponding chapter.The Vocabulary covers different parts of speech. Verbs are presented with information with regard to their aspectual pair and consonant alternations in the paradigm. However, the visual manner in which the verbs, their explanations, and conjugations are presented creates an impression that learners are responsible for pages of new vocabulary. Since it is a bit difficult to navigate the vocabulary pages, learners should be encouraged to highlight the verbs to make them stand out from the list. Psychologically such a device might help learners see and memorize new words more readily, rather than diving into what feels like an ocean of unknown lexicon.New vocabulary can be practised via meaningful fill-in-the-blanks exercises. However, the words to be reviewed appear in the same order in which they are listed in the Vocabulary, making some exercises easy to complete-even without learning the words-by simply going down the list of new vocabulary and filling it in into the blanks.Next, students can study word morphology (roots and semantic nests of words) and take a vocabulary quiz. However, it might be more beneficial to cover the morphology section both before studying the main Active vocabulary list and reading each chapter, so students can draw a connection between old and new knowledge prior to seeing new words in context. This is something that the author fails to explain in the preface on how to use the reader, but something that a teacher would need to focus students' attention on: students need pre-reading exercises which are missing from the reader.The Exercises section ends with Other Activities that consist of oral and written exercises, which are unfortunately repetitive and monotonous. …

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Slavonic PapersSame topicRussian Literature and Bakhtin StudiesFrench-language works237,207