MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2310272346 · doi:10.20361/g2g01c

Mudkin by S. Gammell

2011· article· en· W2310272346 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sarah Mead-Willis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNothingGirlArtQueen (butterfly)LiteratureArt historyPhilosophyHistoryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gammell, Stephen. Mudkin. Minneapolis: Carolrhoda Books, 2011. Print.Kids love mud. Of this there is no doubt. There is nothing like an afternoon spent knee-deep in ooze to undo the adult tyranny of cleanliness and crown a child king— or queen, as in the case of Mudkin. In this latest offering by Caldecott-winning illustrator Stephen Gammell, an imaginative young girl teams up with a playful sprite whose onion-shaped head and squat, gnomelike body are comprised, it would seem, entirely of mud. Mud-made too are the robe and crown he offers the girl, who gladly accepts her newfound role as monarch of muck. Together, the two of them caper and romp through a backyard mud-kingdom, until the rainclouds gather and wash Mudkin and his mud-realm away. The story’s premise – a child conjuring a magical playmate out of the elements – seems familiar, echoing as it does an illustrated masterwork of an earlier generation: Raymond Briggs’s wordless classic, The Snowman. Yet while Briggs’s story ends in a minor key (the snowman, wondrously alive for a single night, melts away in the morning sun), Mudkin’s watery fate carries no sadness; nor does it offer, as The Snowman does, a tacit elegy on the transience of childhood. Gammell’s riotous watercolours (so ecstatically fluid they erupt like geysers on the page) affirm this distinction: mud, unlike snow, is chaotic and unsentimental. Not a medium for reflection, it is the stuff of pure play. As a result, Mudkin is nothing more and nothing less than a bit of good – if not entirely clean – fun. Recommended: 3 out of 4 stars.Reviewer: Sarah Mead-WillisSarah is the Rare Book Cataloguer at the University of Alberta's Bruce Peel Special Collections Library. She holds a BA and an MLIS from the University of Alberta and an MA in English Literature from the University of Victoria.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2860.222

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Deakin Review of Children s LiteratureSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207