MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988026519 · doi:10.20361/dr29444

Julian is a Mermaid by J. Love

2019· article· en· W2988026519 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emily Marriott

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingReading (process)EmbarrassmentArtPsychoanalysisLiteraturePsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Love, Jessica. Julian is a Mermaid. Candlewick Press, 2018. Jessica Love’s first book, Julian is a Mermaid, lives up to her last name: it is a book about love. Julian, a young boy, dreams of being a mermaid. He and his abuela (Spanish for grandmother) go swimming every weekend and on the way home, Julian watches women in their mermaid dresses on the subway. He dreams of becoming a mermaid too, and in the end (spoiler), although he worries about his abuela’s reaction to him dressing up as a mermaid, she embraces it and takes him out to what looks like a mermaid parade. Love does not give the reader a lot of text, but the book is very easy to follow, and the images draw us in to what Julian is thinking and feeling. The muted colours used by Love for background images allows the focus to be drawn to the story itself and what Julian is both experiencing and imagining. The illustrations show us the feelings of the characters. Love manages to capture subtle body language to portray Julian’s emotions, such as him grabbing his arm in embarrassment when he is caught dressing up like a mermaid. The images remind one of the ocean, drawing us in to look deeper. The book reminds us that gender norms can be broken, and that anyone can be a mermaid. It is a hopeful story about love transcending normative ways of being. Children will benefit from reading this book as it will remind them that imaginations do not need to be constrained by strictly defined identity roles. Imagining possibilities of identities allows children to feel comfortable exploring identity. Highly recommended: 4 out of 4 starsReviewer: Emily Marriott

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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1340.084

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Deakin Review of Children s LiteratureSame topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207