MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741995009 · doi:10.20361/g28d7x

Can This Dinosaur Glide? by NOVA

2017· article· en· W2741995009 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Elizabeth Linville

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteractivityNova (rocket)Visitor patternConfusionTest (biology)PremiseEngineeringComputer scienceGeologyWorld Wide WebPaleontologyAeronauticsPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NOVA. ‘Can This Dinosaur Glide?’ PBS.org, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/can-dinosaur-glide.html. Accessed 15 February 2017. In 2008 NOVA, the long-running science series produced by PBS, created an interactive wind tunnel test to explore the glide capabilities of the Microraptor, a small feathered dinosaur discovered in China in 2000. The premise for the test is certainly intriguing for both children and adults: site visitors are invited to take the dinosaur for ‘a spin in this virtual wind tunnel’ (NOVA, ‘Can This Dinosaur Glide?’). However, the actual interactivity is less exciting than suggested. Instead of trying to keep a Microraptor aloft in a wind tunnel, the visitor is directed to position the legs and angles of attack to try to optimise Microraptor’s glide path, and subsequently provided with feedback regarding each position’s effectiveness. While some users still may find this interesting and educational, NOVA spoils the discovery aspect of the activity by stating the optimum angle of attack before you even begin.The organisation of the activity is straightforward. There are only a few areas to explore so there is no confusion when navigating, and information appears in textboxes after selecting the appropriate command. Furthermore, the graphics are generally effective, and the colour scheme allows the site to be readable - a benefit, considering the amount of text. The Wind Tunnel Test has enough user engagement to qualify as interactive but it is very limited and rather uninspiring. Where it fails the most, however, is in the lack of enhancements. There is no video or audio, or even advanced graphics, to engage the user on multiple levels. NOVA has included a transcript from the original scientific tests on which this activity is based, but I feel it would not be very absorbing for children to read. The premise of the activity is intriguing, and some older children might be interested enough in dinosaurs and physics to see past the basicness of the activity to the fascinating scientific discoveries it represents. I feel that younger children, however, will be bored and lose interest by its reliance on text, rather than action.Recommended with reservations: 2 out of 4 starsReviewer: Elizabeth Linville Elizabeth is a graduate student in the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Alberta. When she was a child, she thought dinosaurs were terrifying until it was discovered they had feathers.

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)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2820.238

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207