MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790294250 · doi:10.20381/ruor-12406

Notes from the margin: Understanding collective reading experience in St John's, Newfoundland

2009· dissertation· en· W2790294250 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Rottmann

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2009
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMargin (machine learning)Reading (process)HistoryPsychologyArt historyComputer scienceLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Book clubs are a popular social phenomenon, yet they have been significantly understudied in academic research. By understanding the functions and uses of collective meaning-making through articulations of The Granny Bates Book Club members in St. John's, Newfoundland, this study seeks to illuminate how readers in diasporic communities discursively engage, specifically with children's literature, to negotiate subjective positionings in complex and contradictory ways. The provocative space of book club readership, marked by the comings and goings of diasporic islander identity, legitimizes the members' enjoyment and pleasure gained from reading children's fiction. It acts as a learning space in which members deliberately exchange historical knowledges, display aesthetic evaluations of text, negotiate social, economical, geographical, and regional struggles, as well resist/adhere to gender roles and expectations, all of which adds to banked cultural capital in their daily lives. These 'notes from the margin' speak to the enduring possibilities of everyday cultural practices, specifically as practiced within an interpretative community of female readers perched on the eastern edge of Canada.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Same topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207