MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582049346 · doi:10.20361/g2bp5j

Hungry For Math: Poems to Munch On by K.-L. Winters & L. Sherritt-Fleming

2017· article· en· W2582049346 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Leslie Aitken

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhymeSequence (biology)MathematicsPoetryVariation (astronomy)PennyArithmeticComputer scienceMathematics educationLiteratureArtLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Winters, Kari-Lynn and Lori Sherritt-Fleming. Hungry For Math: Poems to Munch On, illustrated by Peggy Collins. Fitzhenry & Whiteside, 2015.Winters and Sherritt-Fleming seemingly intend this picture book to introduce those mathematical skills and concepts that children learn in their first years of schooling: shape recognition, counting, telling time, and using money. The authors append a glossary that defines such terms as “Base Ten,” “Ordinal numbers,” and “Rhombus.” Having raised our expectations that this will be a mathematically informative book, they get off to a bad start in a rhyme entitled “The Balanced Bee.” “Three circles, tall not wide,”Now, surely, if we are going to define a rhombus for the picture book crowd, we can also allow that a circle is a closed curve with all points on that curve equidistant from the centre. (In other words, it cannot be “tall not wide.”) Their presentation of the concept of time uses a variation on an old standby: “Hickory, Dickory Dock” in “Move Around the Clock.” At one time, the original rhyme was relevant to children because it referenced the nature of a clock. Sometimes, that clock had a pendulum or a sweep second hand to mark the passing seconds; always, it had hands that pointed to the minutes and the hours. Not all clocks chimed, but one could at least see the hands “strike” the hours. Most importantly, the numbers one to twelve circled the clock face and, thus, provided a visual clue to their sequence. Children learned of this sequence without being particularly aware of their learning.For today’s young child the typical “clock” is a digital strip on a microwave, or a smart phone, or an adult’s wrist strap. The numbers on it change either second by second or minute by minute. Staring at this strip which might, for example, read “1:30 p.m.”, how does a child know that “1:00 p.m.” arrived a half hour earlier, that “2:00 p.m.” will arrive a half hour hence, and that “12:30 a.m.” will arrive in a further eleven hours? The concept is no longer visually obvious. This book does not illuminate it. Despite a text which reads, “The mouse ran up the clock,” the mouse in Peggy Collins’ illustration does not run “up” anything: it hops along insouciantly through the gears and springs and winding key of a technology now unknown to children. Nor does the mouse progress systematically through the hours. The text accompanying its romp reads, “…three o’clock, four-thirty, seven o’clock…nine-thirty” …etc. Primary school teacherswould have to struggle to relate anything in this story sequence to the daily rotation of the earth, and humankind’s decision to mark its course in hours, minutes and seconds. Equally unhelpful is the rhymed story of the Spendosaur who wastes all his pennies at the candy store. The penny was discontinued in Canada two years before the publication of this book. The coin’s time honoured usefulness as a counting device or an introduction to base ten is kaput. Increasingly, we use credit cards at the shops. We buy online using computers and hand-held devices. We need not count change; we can simply enter a figure representing the cost of our purchase on a digital screen. In sum, Canadian children of primary school age scarcely remember that their parents once carried pennies in their pockets, let alone that they actually used the copper coins to make purchases. “One penny buys a chocolate-dipped pickle.” becomes merely a line of amusing nonsense.In part, uncertainty of intent may have led to this picture book’s various problems. It attempts to be both an entertaining fantasy and an engaging teaching tool. The blurring of purposes here has not quite succeeded. Reviewer: Leslie AitkenNot recommended: 1 star out of 4Leslie Aitken’s long career in librarianship included selection of books for school, public, special and academic libraries. She is a former Curriculum Librarian for the University of Alberta.

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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1640.060

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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