MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766889916 · doi:10.20361/g2xx0b

Little Bunny's Own Storybook by M. Welwood

2017· article· en· W2766889916 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Laura Hamonic

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFavouriteArtWhite (mutation)DreamLiteratureRhymeVisual artsArt historyPsychologyPoetryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Welwood, Margaret. Little Bunny's Own Storybook, illustrated by Nataly Vits, Bomars Ventures, 2017.Margaret Welwood tells the story of a little bunny, who wants to spend the day at his favourite place, the library. Unfortunately, it is closed, and he must find another way to occupy himself. The little bunny feels sad because he does not want to play outside or with his toys, but then has the idea to make his own book. He collects paper, crayons, glue, and paint, and goes about writing his own story. The little bunny spends the day busily working on it. Then he reads his new book to his parents, who love the story. Finally, the little bunny encourages the reader to write their own stories and create their own books.This book has gentle, watercolour illustrations that give an almost dream-like quality to the book. Most pages are dominated with browns, greens, and blues. Each illustration fills a single page with the text written in a soft white bubble that overlays the images. The images are very pretty, but they do not add more information to the book, beyond what can be gleaned from the text itself.The text is an interesting combination of simple structure and rhyme scheme with complex and advanced vocabulary. The second and fourth line of every page rhyme, which gives the book a pleasant and familiar lilt. However, because of the use of words like “antidote,” the language seems somehow discordant. This book indicates that it is intended for children aged 3 to 8, but the vocabulary would likely be too difficult for 3-year-olds, and the simple story line would likely be uninteresting for 8-year-olds. As a result, I would recommend it more for children aged 5 to 6. The book is clearly meant to convey the pleasures of reading and the library, as well as creating and sharing. As a result, I would recommend this book for public libraries. Recommended: 3 stars out of 4Reviewer: Laura HamonicLaura Hamonic is an Academic Library Resident at the University of Alberta’s Science and Technology Library. She has a passion for all things crafty and spends her days cross stitching, crocheting, and costume making.

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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

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 studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2220.126

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.242
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
GenreReview

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