Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editor’s Introduction James Marten Readers who sense a little déjà vu in this issue will be forgiven; some of the articles revisit issues addressed in 10:1—children and the arts, delinquency, and new forms of trying to establish control over children. Yet each article either brings a fresh perspective to a traditional concern for historians of children and youth, or takes on a relatively unexplored aspect of the lives of young people. A pair of articles examine France at either end of the nineteenth century. Julia Gossard shows how authorities tried to turn children attending charity schools into spies, requiring them to turn in family members for immoral or illegal activities, while Miranda Sachs investigates the ways in which officials framed child begging in fin de siècle Paris in terms of child labor and delinquency. Michael Hines’s richly illustrated piece crosses the Atlantic to a Hull House playground, where reformers’ efforts to shape children’s play collided with youngsters’ desire to create their own spaces and pastimes. Two other articles and the object lesson introduce topics and/or sources new to the JHCY. Pamela Riney-Kehrberg’s object lesson draws on a yearbook from Harlan (Iowa) Community High School for insights into how high school students responded to the farm crisis of the 1980s. Melissa Klapper explores notions of gender, sex, and stereotyping since the Second World War through the lens of boys taking ballet lessons. Similarly, Mary-Ann Shantz considers ideas about child sexuality and health in the context of post-war Canadian nudists’ efforts to normalize their movement by drawing on ideas about natural and innocent childhood. [End Page 155] Copyright © 2017 Johns Hopkins University Press
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 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.295 | 0.157 |
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".