Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ever since The New York Times published an article in October 2010 about the impending demise of the picture book, I have wanted to publish a short screed in its defense. I thought this was an opportune time because so many splendid picture books are featured in our spring issue. Let it be known that I am a devoted fan of children’s picture books. I read them voraciously as an adult, and have done so for as long as I can remember. I collect them. I purchase them in stores and from online booksellers. I present them to friends and little ones as gifts. As a special collections librarian, I also purchase them to complement and strengthen our antiquarian collections. To my immense satisfaction, I am literally surrounded by them. I understand that my passion for picture books is intense, but picture books are essential to feeding the child’s imagination and developing his or her critical thinking skills. A simple keyword search on the University of Alberta Libraries’ online catalogue revealed numerous peer-reviewed articles about the ways that picture books open up imaginative worlds to children; with this richer understanding of stories, children gain a greater understanding of themselves and the world they live in. If we acknowledge that picture books encourage children to construct meaning about characters, events, settings, and so on, then it seems only natural to conclude that picture books are essential to preparing beginning readers for pictureless chapter books. The author of the Times article reported that many parents are saying “My kid doesn’t need books with pictures anymore”, which is utterly shocking especially when we know the important role that pictures play in communication. When we introduce picture books to young readers, we allow them to make connections between their own life experiences and the illustrator’s use of colour, imagery, perspective, characterization, and dramatization. Picture books can provide powerful learning opportunities for children. I am always astonished at how much there is to learn about reading pictures. Whenever I open a picture book, I take great delight in the interpretive process. Indeed, interpretation is the essence of picture books, which is why sharing picture books with children is one of the best ways to develop their critical thinking skills. Are picture books dying “a sad little death”? The answer is obvious. I think not. I hope you enjoy this issue and please do get in touch if you have comments or questions. Robert Desmarais, Managing Editor
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.415 | 0.290 |
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".