MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302536146 · doi:10.20361/g2qc80

I Can See Just Fine by E. Barclay

2014· article· en· W2302536146 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Maria Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Education and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)WitnessArtNoticeArt historyVisual artsComputer sciencePhilosophyLawLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Barclay, Eric. I Can See Just Fine. New York, NY:, Abrams Appleseed, 2013. Print.Paige is a little girl who really needs glasses, but doesn’t know it. Her teachers and her mum and dad notice that she is having trouble with her vision, but when her parents decide to take her to the eye doctor, she’s not keen on going.Young readers will follow Paige as she goes for her eye examination and through the process of choosing frames. They will witness the dramatic change in how Paige sees the world when she finally gets her new glasses. I Can See Just Fine gives children get a sense of what to expect if they need glasses, ranging from what they will encounter during a visit to the optometrist or ophthalmologist, to the clinic environment, to the equipment and procedures, to being fitted for lenses and frames.Author and illustrator, Eric Barclay, crafts a story that is engaging, humorous, and instructive. His text and artwork highlights the fun and fascinating aspects of the eye exam and frame selection process. Barclay includes many details that draw in the reader and make reading and re-reading the story enjoyable, weaving humorous details around the central issue of Paige’s vision impairment. He employs two-page spreads at strategic points in the story, in one case representing the vast array of frames for Paige to select, and in another communicating the dramatic contrast between what Paige sees with and without her new glasses.I Can See Just Fine is a story that will entertain and educate young readers, and help children to feel less anxious about having their vision assessed and corrected. The story’s text and illustrations include subtle details that will appeal to older readers or to parents/older siblings reading the book to young children.Highly recommended: 4 out of 4 starsReviewer: Maria TanMaria C. Tan is a medical librarian at the Abdul Khaliq Library in Alberta Health Services’ Cross Cancer Institute and a former editorial team member of the Deakin Review. She firmly believes that children's literature is an essential component in the fountain of youth.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4910.408

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Deakin Review of Children s LiteratureSame topicAfrican Education and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207