MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244396721 · doi:10.1353/bcc.2017.0786

Last Laughs: Prehistoric Epitaphs by J. Patrick Lewis

2017· article· en· W4244396721 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elizabeth Bush

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Center for Children's Books./Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheme (computing)PoetryHistoryArtElegiacLiteraturePrehistoryPhilosophyArt historyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Last Laughs: Prehistoric Epitaphs by J. Patrick Lewis Elizabeth Bush Lewis, J. Patrick Last Laughs: Prehistoric Epitaphs; by J. Patrick Lewis and Jane Yolen; illus. by Jeffrey Stewart Timmins. Charlesbridge, 2017 32p ISBN 978-1-58089-706-8 $16.99 Ad Gr. 2-5 Elegiac tombstone inscriptions have long been targets for good-natured skewering (think Disney’s Haunted Mansion) and even sharper-edged satire, and the idea of R.I.P.s directed at deceased dinos is promising. Execution doesn’t match concept here, though, as Lewis and Yolen present a variety of verse that’s more often miss than hit. The poems, neatly arranged chronologically from the Paleozoic through Cenozoic Eras (with specific periods noted as well), are seldom the concise tributes with startling punchlines that readers will probably expect, and few would fit on a tombstone. Instead the content is a grab bag of general comments on the featured creatures accompanied by a few italicized lines of scientific commentary or, in the disappointing instance of Plesiosaur, a tacit apology for how the information is incorrect. Nor does the boneyard theme enjoy visual treatment; a wackily cartoon-styled paleontologist Prof. M. Piltdown (sorry, kids, no explanation of the joke is given) appears in most scenes, re-imagining how his subjects may have met their demise. A closing note about geological layers in which dino bones are found lends curricular utility, and Yolen’s pithy “Holy Moly, Woolly Mammoth” is clever enough to make readers understand how this project might have worked. As the authors themselves suggest, “Maybe you could write your own epitaphs to round out our collection.” 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 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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2070.102

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Center for Children's Books./Bulletin of the Center for Children's BooksSame topicArchaeological Research and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207