Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Tiger Lily Karen Coats Anderson, Jodi Lynn . Tiger Lily. HarperTeen/HarperCollins, 2012. [304p]. Trade ed. ISBN 9780-06-200325-6 $17.99 E-book ed. ISBN 978-0-06-211461-7 $9.99 Reviewed from galleys R* Gr. 8-12. Living on the social edge of her village in Neverland and reared by an ambiguously gendered shaman, Tiger Lily may be a bit witchy herself. The loneliness that comes with her outsider status has instilled in her both fearlessness and wanderlust, a combination that eventually drives her into the forbidden lands where Peter Pan lives. She and Peter approach each other warily, recognizing a common inner wildness, which soon turns to respect and a fierce love. Tiger Lily has other commitments, though, such as her engagement to a loathsome older man in repayment of a debt, while her adopted father—the aforementioned shaman, Tik Tok—requires her care after an event in the village leaves him emotionally devastated. All of this proves too much for Peter, so he pushes Tiger Lily away and falls for the simple, devoted Wendy, who satisfies some masculine longing in him that Tiger Lily always challenged with her strength and independence. Tiger Lily's tale is told by Tinker Bell, who in this rendering is devoted to the girl and who struggles with her deep love for both Tiger Lily and Pan. The elements of the original tale are all present, but they are played out with subtle but credible twists in interpretation and focus. Though the book is suitable for younger readers, the suggestive allusions and penetrating insights into gender, aging, and colonization pay more sophisticated attention to the craft of adaptation by drawing out ideas latent in Barrie's work. Unlike other sequels and revisions of Peter Pan, this is serious and moving; indeed, it stands up to comparison with Terry Pratchett's Nation (BCCB 11/08) in its emotional intensity and ideological concerns. 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.125 | 0.068 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".