MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767083270 · doi:10.20361/g21q2z

Rocky Mountain 123s by J. Asnong

2017· article· en· W2767083270 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Andrea Quaiattini

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdventureMountHistoryGeographyVisual artsArt historyArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asnong, Jocey. Rocky Mountain 123s. Rocky Mountain Books, 2017.Though ultimately a basic counting book, Rocky Mountain 123s is a wholly whimsical and entertaining board book. Jocey Asnong, inspired by the beautiful surroundings of her home in Canmore, Alberta, takes readers on a numerical romp through the Rocky Mountains. Rocky Mountain 123s perfectly accompanies Asnong’s 2016 board book Rocky Mountain ABCs, with both books using the action and adventure of the great outdoors to teach the most foundational lessons to children.Though there is no overarching narrative, a page is a little story unto itself. Each page focuses on one number, with the numbers counting up sequentially from one to twenty. There is a short, simple sentence describing the “story”, with a colourful illustration to match. Using both animals and people as subjects, Asnong situates them in a variety of outdoor activities and locations around the Rockies, which she identifies in a small side text. “Fifteen footprints are made in the snow” has a girl tromping across Lake O’Hara in her snowshoes, while “Nine goats climb a hard line” shows mountain goats scrambling up Maligne Canyon. Readers will be able to easily identify and count the number items on the page - “Twelve tents light up the night” has twelve easily countable tents perched around Mount Robson. The number is also numerically written out in bold print and colour to help readers connect the illustration to the number.This is a delightful book, and is highly recommended. However, as it is a board book, it would be most appropriate for public libraries.Highly Recommended: 4 stars out of 4Reviewer: Andrea QuaiattiniAndrea Quaiattini is a Public Services Librarian at the University of Alberta’s JW Scott Health Sciences Library. While working as a camp counsellor, she memorized Mortimer and The Paper Bag Princess by Robert Munsch as bedtime stories for the kids. She can still do all the voices.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3470.238

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

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