MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2575769725

The Ecocritical Subtexts of Three Early-Twenty-First-Century Aussie Animal Horror Movies

2015· article· en· W2575769725 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Fuchs

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWonderWildlifeEthnologyNegotiationGenealogyDingoIdentity (music)MetisEnvironmental ethicsHistoryGeographyEcologyPolitical scienceLawBiologyAestheticsArtEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

37 In his book Animal Nation (2006), Adrian Franklin highlights the ways in which Australia’s wildlife has played an important role in the negotiation of Australians’ national identity. Since Australia’s wildlife includes species native to the country, species which migrated to Australia before white settlers arrived, and species which were consciously brought to Australia by human beings, Australia’s animal kingdom ‘do[es] not represent homogeneity but a rather puzzling and unstable heterogeneity within which there are clear indications of boundaries, border disputes and even policies and practices of species-cleansing’ (2006, p. 14). In the semantic chaos surrounding Australia’s wildlife, native animals, such as the kangaroo and the koala, have been embraced as national symbols, for, as animals ‘that existed outside European taxonomic conventions’ (2006, p. 26), they have always represented ‘the strangeness and upsidedownness’ (2006, p. 26) and, thus, the uniqueness of Australia. No wonder that the Australian coat of arms features an emu and a red kangaroo, two native animals which were already charged with symbolic meaning

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.022
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207