MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911905662 · doi:10.7202/1055145ar

Same-sex Couples in Children’s Picture Books in French and in English: Censorship Somewhere Over the Rainbow?

2018· article· en· W2911905662 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Julie Tarif

Bibliographic record

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Sexual Relationships
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensorshipFrenchNewspaperCensoring (clinical trials)Perspective (graphical)SociologyMedia studiesHistoryLiteraturePolitical scienceLawArtVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on children’s picture books featuring same-sex couples in Anglophone and Francophone cultures, and more particularly in France and in the United States, with a particular interest in the censorship of these works. Censoring a book is common in the United States. This essay is a reflexion on the publication and reception of Francophone picture books on the topic – originals and translations. In this perspective, it also considers the question of the circulation of these books between the two cultures, as well as towards the two cultures respectively, Francophone picture books tending to be bolder in content than their Anglophone counterparts. Some references used to explain reception are gathered thanks to primary sources, in particular personal communications; others come from secondary sources, such as academic publications, blogs, and newspaper articles. This paper also explores the different forms of censorship, including the translation of a work from another culture or the alterations to the illustrations of an original work in an adaptation. The contrastive approach adopted reveals that, despite the growing number of picture books featuring same-sex couples, censorship is not only an American reality but a French reality as well.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeta Journal des traducteursSame topicMarriage and Sexual RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207