MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796455398

In Discussion with Mary Pratt

2007· article· fr· W2796455398 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elaine Kalman Naves

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Children's Literature / Littérature canadienne pour la jeunesse · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtHistoryArt history
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resume: Dans ses recherches sur l'influence de L.M. Montgomery dans les lettres canadiennes, Elaine Kalman Naves a decouvert que cette influence s'exercait bien au-dela de la litterature. Par exemple, chez Mary Pratt, celebre artiste et femme peintre de Terre-Neuve. Dans une entrevue telephonique, cette derniere explique le caractere particulier de l'heritage culturel qu'a legue l'auteur Anne aux pignons verts . Summary: In researching an article for Canadian Living magazine about the life of L.M. Montgomery and her influence on later Canadian writers, Elaine Kalman Naves conducted a series of interviews across the country. Dr.Elizabeth Epperly, currently the President of the University of Prince Edward Island, mentioned to her that Montgomery influenced not only writers, but also women in other professions, citing the case of the distinguished and well-known Newfoundland artist Mary Pratt (b. Fredericton 1935). Elaine Naves subsequently interviewed Mary Pratt by telephone on May 13, 1994, and here is part of their discussion about how powerful stories circulate in a culture. Mary Pratt's subject matter is often taken from her kitchen or house, and it reflects her interest in representing women's domestic lives.

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)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0250.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.008

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Children's Literature / Littérature canadienne pour la jeunesseSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207