MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804710453 · doi:10.20361/dr29333

Collette’s Lost Pet by I. Arsenault

2018· article· en· W2804710453 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Samantha Nugent

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPicture booksKindnessRepetition (rhetorical device)White (mutation)Book designArtMeaning (existential)Visual artsPsychologyLiteratureLinguisticsPhilosophyPsychotherapistTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arsenault, Isabelle. Collette’s Lost Pet. Tundra Books, 2017.In this attractive, graphic novel-style picture book, Canadian author and illustrator Isabelle Arsenault tells the story of Collette—the new girl at Mile End. Unsure of how to meet other children in her new neighbourhood, Collette invents a story about a lost bird. As more children are recruited to help search for Collette’s lost bird, the fib grows, too. Although children and adults of all ages will enjoy this book’s delightful illustrations, the text is best suited to more mature readers within and above the publisher-recommended age range of 4 to 8 years. Since many younger children are taught to always speak truthfully, this book is more suitable for older readers who can reflect critically on a white lie that is not punished, but instead elicits empathy and kindness. Additionally, much of the story is told through Arsenault’s illustrations, which invite readers to find meaning beyond the words on the page. However, this nuanced relationship between text and illustrations is balanced by familiar picture book conventions, such as the repetition of phrases.Collette’s Lost Pet explores the relatable themes of being new and trying to fit in, and the protagonist’s fanciful invention of an increasingly larger-than-life parakeet makes this book’s text as engaging as its illustrations. This story demonstrates the importance of welcoming newcomers and is sure to be an appreciated addition to school, public, and home library collections.Highly Recommended: 4 out of 4 starsReviewer: Samantha NugentSam works as a librarian at the Hinton Municipal Library.

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)0.002
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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0970.050

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Deakin Review of Children s LiteratureSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207