MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972531871 · doi:10.1080/19388071.2019.1655610

Readers of Comics and the Recursive Nature of Adolescent Emotion: Exploring the Productive Relation of Visual Response and Memory in Teacher Education

2019· article· en· W2972531871 on OpenAlexaff
David Lewkowich

Bibliographic record

VenueLiteracy Research and Instruction · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicComics and Graphic Narratives
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyComicsValue (mathematics)Reading (process)Relation (database)Psychoanalytic theoryExpression (computer science)Picture booksDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyPsychoanalysisVisual artsLinguisticsLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper details the visual responses created by a group of preservice teachers reading a series of contemporary graphic novels about adolescence. Visual response is here understood as an interpretive methodology of transmediation, informed by theorists of multimodal literacies as well as particular forms of psychoanalytic inquiry related to creative symbolization. Over the course of 5 months, six readers collaboratively interpreted four novels, each of which took a unique glance at the emotional and developmental challenges of adolescence: Tamaki and Tamaki’s “This One Summer,” Barry’s “My Perfect Life,” DeForge’s “Big Kids,” and Yang’s “American Born Chinese.” Responding in visual form, readers were able to reacquaint themselves with the emotional value of adolescence, a value that is often unavailable to strictly linguistic modes of expression.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiteracy Research and InstructionSame topicComics and Graphic NarrativesFrench-language works237,207