MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W241189349 · doi:10.20361/g24k61

Bear's Loose Tooth by K. Wilson and J. Chapman

2014· article· en· W241189349 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Dale Storie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepetition (rhetorical device)ArtHistoryPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wilson, Karma, and Jane Chapman. Bear's Loose Tooth. New York: Little Simon, 2014. Print.This title is the latest in a series of books featuring Bear and his friends. Those familiar with the series will know what to expect: the title describes the main plot point of the book (e.g. Bear Feels Sick or Bear’s New Friend), the language is lyrical and rhythmic with plenty of repetition, and the painted illustrations are a mixture of cartoony realism. His friends are a rather random group of forest animals that one would not typically expect to see together, such as a wren, a mouse, an owl, a hare and a badger. This particular title is a great introduction to the experience of losing a tooth. Bear is initially worried when he discovers his loose tooth while eating lunch: “But how will I eat if my tooth says good-bye?” After his friends reassure him that another tooth will grow in, they take turns trying to pull out his tooth. Finally, Bear wiggles his tooth until it falls out. He leaves his tooth for the tooth fairy, who exchanges it for something a bear would like better than money (read the book to find out what that is).The size difference between the animals is presented realistically, which is part of the charm of the book; for example, the image of a tiny wren trying to pull a tooth out of the mouth of a big bear is quite comical. The illustrations also play a large role in defining Bear as a character, who comes across as an adorable and timid creature, without any trace of the guile or ferocity one might expect from a bear. Younger readers will probably accept the book at face value, but older readers may question why Bear and his friends have not tried to eat each other yet (e.g. Owl and Mouse). Either way, the book is still a fun read that helps prepare children for what to expect with a loose tooth. Recommended: 3 of out 4 starsReviewer: Dale StorieDale is a systems librarian at the Saskatchewan Information and Library Services Consortium. He has also worked in an academic health sciences library as a public services librarian and in a public library as a children's programming coordinator. He can often be found at the park with his kids

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)0.002
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.026

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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