MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213174757 · doi:10.1353/bcc.2012.0083

Dark Inside (review)

2012· article· en· W4213174757 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kate Quealy-Gainer

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Center for Children's Books./Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreaturesNothingPsychoanalysisHistoryPsychologyArt historyCriminologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Dark Inside Kate Quealy-Gainer Roberts, Jeyn. Dark Inside. Simon, 2011. 329p. ISBN 978-1-4424-2351-0 $17.99 R Gr. 8–12. In this apocalyptic novel, the end of the world brings not only earthquakes and tsunamis but also a dark force that turns humans into psychotic creatures bent on murder. Clementine barely escapes being rounded up and killed with the rest of her midwestern town by two infected neighbors; Mason is the lone survivor of suicide bombing at his small Canadian high school; Michael flees his hometown after realizing the two brutal murders he witnessed were not isolated incidents. The three teens all head west toward rumors of a safe haven in Vancouver, where they meet Aries, who has been holed up in a bombed-out store, fighting off the bloodthirsty “Baggers.” Amidst the recent glut of doomsday scenarios, Roberts makes her story stand out by focusing both on the physical challenges of finding safety in a world gone mad as well as the psychological devastation experienced by each of the teens. The terror of seeing friends suddenly transformed into monsters is keenly felt, but it is the teens’ disillusionment with themselves, and particularly their ability or willingness (or lack thereof) to lead that is most affecting. Playing the hero is a bit harder than they’ve been led to believe, and each of them discovers that the guilt of being a survivor is nothing compared to the emotional toll of having to make the hard decisions. The characters’ struggles with their circumstances and their limits are vividly portrayed, and the storylines seamlessly coalesce into a thrilling climax. Readers looking to prepare themselves for the end of the world might do well to start here. [End Page 273] Copyright © 2012 The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2220.101

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Center for Children's Books./Bulletin of the Center for Children's BooksSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207