Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue of the Deakin Review of Children’s Literature is dedicated to health fiction. The concept for the special issue grew out of an interest in using fiction as a tool in health literacy and healing. Many of us have had the experience of escaping in to a book as a place of refuge when the real world seems too tough or being moved and inspired by a story about someone coping with illness, injury, or disability. We wondered whether or not fictional works that offer children similar benefits are readily available? The answer is ‘Yes’, to a large extent. But as we started to read our way through the books in local libraries, we realized that a number of the books may be of questionable benefit. Many had flaws, from obvious content errors to subtle issues that you might not recognize unless you read the book closely or someone brought them to your attention. We wanted to take the opportunity to use this issue of Deakin to showcase some of the high quality fiction that we would recommend to libraries and parents. The authors of the reviews are librarians or other information professionals, with strengths in children's literature, health librarianship, or both. Many have children. Most are experienced reviewers. Even though we had done some pre-screening, several of the reviewers started reviews and then discarded them when they found that upon close examination, they could not recommend the books. The accompanying article describes the larger study that we undertook to thoroughly review current children's health fiction. The end products of this research were: 1) a checklist for selection of children's health fiction; 2) a list of readily available works in the area; 3) this special theme issue of the Deakin, and; 4) a joint exhibit of the reviewed books, at the University of Alberta’s Education and Health Sciences libraries, to complement the publication of this issue. In addition to the outcomes mentioned above, it is our hope that an additional benefit of this project will be an increased community awareness of the value of children’s health fiction and the knowledge that sometimes a good story is good medicine. Sandy Campbell and Maria TanSandy is a Health Sciences Librarian at the University of Alberta, who has written hundreds of book reviews across many disciplines. Sandy thinks that sharing books with children is one of the greatest gifts anyone can give. Maria C. Tan is a medical librarian at the Abdul Khaliq Library in Alberta Health Services’ Cross Cancer Institute and a former editorial team member of the Deakin Review. She firmly believes that children's literature is an essential component in the fountain of youth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.405 | 0.232 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".