Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper will basically describe my experiences over the last three years using the first three of J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels as English Composition course texts with third and fourth year university students. The students in question are mostly English Department majors as the course is required as part of the program for certification as junior high school and senior high school English teachers. The paper will describe the basic reasons for choosing Rowling's novels as texts, general class procedure, and course requirements, setting it all very briefly in the context of Japanese education and society. The basic finding is that although Japanese university students have little experience in extensive reading, especially in English, they are willing and able to read a full length book as well as read and write weekly page-long comments on the various chapters of the book. They are also able to write page-lon weekly diaries on matters of personal interest as well as two-page movie reviews on an average of four movies per school year (the movies in question deal with themes related to the Harry Potter novels). In general, however, the students seem to have little knowledge of what one would call the basic classics of Western civilization and literature as well as topic-related books such as Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. Another finding over the past several years has been that Japanese university students have very little knowledge of any works in the field of children's or juvenile or young adult literature. Most university English Departments likewise do not have courses or specialists in this area, whereas they are commonly included in English Departments in universities in at least the United States, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".