MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235842094 · doi:10.1353/bcc.2005.0095

So You Want to Be an Explorer? (review)

2005· article· en· W4235842094 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elizabeth Bush

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Center for Children's Books./Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeorge (robot)GlobeArt historyHistoryArtPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: So You Want to Be an Explorer? Elizabeth Bush St. George, Judith So You Want to Be an Explorer?; illus. by David Small. Philomel, 2005 [56p] ISBN 0-399-23868-9$16.99 Reviewed from galleys Ad Gr. 3-5 If President (BCCB 7/00) isn't exciting enough, and Inventor (BCCB 10/02) is too sedentary, St. George and Small offer readers a third career option in their now familiar series: consider the life of an explorer. There are explorers who "tackle a quest with gusto," such as Alexander the Great and Thor Heyerdahl; there are risk takers, such as mountain climber Barbara Washburn and test pilot Chuck Yeager. Some focus on firsts: circumnavigating the globe by spacecraft (Yuri Gagarin) or on foot (David Kunst—but how he crossed the oceans is left a mystery). Others find fame in failure: Ernest Shackleton's Antarctic near-misses, and Amelia Earhart's mid-flight disappearance. St. George encourages readers to think broadly about what constitutes exploration, including not only the big names in earth, sea, and space travel, but also Francis Collins and Craig Venter, "who decoded the human DNA 'letters' in 2000." A collection like this really needs the background knowledge of Presidents to work most effectively; without it, the result is ultimately an enticing [End Page 115] but disjointed collection of underexplained trivia. Information flies by at warp speed, and claims that aren't adequately nuanced will raise some questions: was the Kon-Tiki voyage really "proof positive" that "Westerns could have sailed from Peru to Polynesia thousands of years ago? How did the northerly Inuit manage to help Roald Amundsen on his trip to the South Pole? Nonetheless, St. George and Small have their audience pegged—kids thirsty for lightning-fast factoids accompanied by high energy, comical caricatures that refuse to treat must-know personages with the textbook reverence they generally enjoy. Report writers can cull the glossary for topic tips if they must, but expect this to find its real berth with the casual page-thumbers. Copyright © 2005 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)0.007
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.017

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Center for Children's Books./Bulletin of the Center for Children's BooksSame topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207