Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: The Lotterys Plus One by Emma Donoghue Deborah Stevenson Donoghue, Emma The Lotterys Plus One; illus. by Caroline Hadilaksono. Levine/Scholastic, 2017 [320p] Trade ed. ISBN 978-0-545-92581-5 $17.99 E-book ed. ISBN 978-0-545-92582-2 $10.99 Reviewed from galleys Ad Gr. 4-6 The Lotterys are an intentional family of four parents (one male couple and one female) and seven kids, some adopted and some biological, who chose their family name when they won the lottery. Their winnings allowed them to buy the rambling old Victorian in Toronto where they all live in happiness and chaotic equilibrium, but the balance is destroyed when PopCorn’s elderly father, whose increasing dementia means he can no longer live on his own, moves in. Conservative Grumps disapproves of the multiracial, non-heteronormative, progressive-focused family, and the Lotterys, especially nine-year-old Sumac, who has to give up her bedroom, find him a disruption to cherished household ways. The book spends so much time on world building, with the quirky details of every aspect of Lottery life and every eccentric term for elements of the house and routine carefully explained, that it interferes with the impact of the story, and Grumps’ change of heart is such a complete and abrupt about-face that it’s too implausible to be satisfying. However, internationally esteemed author Donoghue has a sharp eye for the dynamics of a huge family and the markings of contemporary hipsterdom (indeed, the perfection there suggests some fond satire), and the pell-mell charm of the Lotterys will strike a chord with readers who enjoy Hilary McKay’s Casson family chronicles. This title may end up succeeding more as setup for the planned series than as a standalone, but the Lotterys are an entertaining crowd to meet. Final illustrations not seen. Copyright © 2017 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.251 | 0.185 |
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".