MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790278651 · doi:10.20361/g2zt2c

The Fly; The Rat; The Slug; The Worm: Disgusting Critters Series by E. Gravel

2018· article· en· W2790278651 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Merrill Distad

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEducation, Technology, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Peck (Imperial)CurriculumVisual artsHistoryLiteratureArt historyArtSociologyPhilosophyPedagogyBiologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gravel, Elise. The Fly; The Rat; The Slug; The Worm: Disgusting Critters Series. Tundra Books, 2016.These paperback reissues of Governor General’s award-winning children’s author Elise Gravel’s Disgusting Critters series – one that includes further volumes devoted to the spider, the toad, and head lice[!] – serve to bring to an even wider audience Gravel’s whimsical illustrations and sense of humour. Translated from the original French, the captions offer a soupçon of homely scientific information about each critter’s contribution to global ecology. Gravel is also known for her cartoons and graphic novels, and her critter illustrations are mainly sight-gags. Thus, while these books are ideally suited for reading to children from 3 to 6, older children learning to read can/will understand and appreciate the jokes. Recommended for all public, school, and academic curriculum library collections.Highly recommended: 4 out of 4 starsReviewer: Merrill Distad Historian and author Merrill Distad enjoyed a four-decade career building libraries and library collections.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0930.037

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 head0.266
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Deakin Review of Children s LiteratureSame topicEducation, Technology, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207