Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to demonstrate J. M. Barrie’s Peter and Wendy (1911) as a meta-narrative on how imaginative play must be safeguarded for children. Wendy, who is from London, has had the opportunity to travel to Neverland with Peter Pan. When she returns to London, she moves on with her life, grows up, and later becomes a mother who narrates the story about Neverland to her children. Meanwhile, Peter Pan who lives in the fantasy world Neverland arbitrates between two worlds: Neverland and London. He is just a fictional character who exists in the mother’s narrative and who guides little girls to Neverland. The entrance and passage to Neverland is a training ground for all children to explore their imagination. Peter Pan serves as a guide to Wendy and her daughters in their Neverland adventures. They then repeatedly talk about their fantastic experiences about. Wendy’s first question to Peter Pan, “Why are you crying?,” which is repeated by Jane shows that the women’s storytelling tradition continues from Mrs. Darling, to Wendy, and to her daughters. In this way, Barrie could write a meta-narrative for adults and not for children. From the Victorian ideology of women, he identifies women’s nurturing abilities as sewing and storytelling both of which are given to Wendy. Wendy and her daughters nurture their bodies and souls particularly through their storytelling ability. Eventually, they become adult narrators who have the power to continue to maintain the existence of Peter Pan and Neverland.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".