MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336525670 · doi:10.20361/g2pk60

Hansel and Gretel and the Green Witch by L. North

2016· article· en· W2336525670 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sean Borle

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWitchPublishingVisual artsArtAction (physics)Media studiesArt historyHistoryLiteratureSociologyPsychologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

North, Laura. Hansel and Gretel and the Green Witch. Illus. Chris Jevons. St. Catharines, ON: Crabtree Publishing, 2015. Print.This book is a “health message” twist on the Hansel and Gretel story. The children in this story watch television and eat junk food. They follow a trail of doughnuts into the forest, where they are captured by a witch. Instead of fattening them up, she forces them to do exercise and eat healthy foods, because she only eats healthy kids. By the time the witch, who sometimes wears sweat pants and carries a megaphone, thinks Hansel and Gretel are ready to eat, they are fit enough to run away. Children will like the brightly coloured pictures, which the illustrator, Chris Jevons, obviously had fun creating. They will also be drawn in by Laura North’s completely original take on the story that they already know. The story is simply told, with easy words for beginning readers. The two puzzles at the end of the book are not essential to the story, but would be a fun way to review the story with children. This book is recommended for school and public libraries.Highly Recommended: 4 stars out of 4Reviewer: Sean BorleSean Borle is a University of Alberta undergraduate student who is an advocate for child health and safety.

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)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.035

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 head0.315
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Deakin Review of Children s LiteratureSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207