MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248722250 · doi:10.20361/g23k6q

Editorial

2015· editorial· en· W4248722250 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lynne Wiltse, Joanne De Groot

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2015
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPleasureLiteracyReading (process)Class (philosophy)PsychologyLibrary scienceSociologyMathematics educationMedia studiesPedagogyComputer sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is our pleasure to be contributing to this editorial for The Deakin Review of Children’s Literature:My name is Lynne Wiltse and I am an Associate Professor in the Department of Elementary Education at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta (Canada). I teach courses in language and literacy and children’s literature, and have eagerly read each issue of The Deakin since its inception in 2011. I have made sure to introduce my students to this valuable resource. For example, I have the undergraduate students in my children’s literature course undertake an assignment which requires them to explore the site in detail and compare it to its predecessor, the Deakin Newsletter. I was intrigued when I came across the special issue that featured Joanne de Groot’s teacher-librarian students recommending “great new books.” At the time, I was teaching a graduate course, Children's Literature in the Elementary School (EDEL 510). I thought how I would love to have my students involved in such an initiative. The next time I was due to teach the course, I contacted the editorial team to discuss the possibility. As it happened, Joanne had done the same. The editorial team kindly offered for us to share a special double issue; my students would review books that are geared primarily for an elementary audience, while Joanne's class would review books that are intended for a secondary audience.I made space in the course so that my students, all of whom are practicing teachers, could have the invaluable opportunity to review contemporary books for children. I was delighted with the diverse range of books my students selected for review. In our course, we discussed the importance of authentic writing opportunities for children; this certainly proved to be an authentic writing experience for my students, one that they embraced with enthusiasm! We are very excited to see their published reviews in The Deakin, and we are looking forward to reading the reviews of the students in EDEL 546 as well. I thank Kim Frail and the rest of the editorial team of The Deakin Review of Children’s Literature for their support of this special issue.Lynne WiltseAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Elementary EducationUniversity of Albertaemail: lynne.wiltse@ualberta.caMy name is Joanne de Groot and I am an instructor in the Teacher-Librarianship by Distance Learning (TLDL) program at the University of Alberta. Students in this class are teachers and teacher-librarians from across Canada, particularly British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nunavut. We even had a student in EDEL 546 who is currently teaching in Kathmandu!EDEL 546 is an Introduction to Resources for Children and Young Adults and provides students with an introduction to literature and other print and digital media for young people in schools and libraries. Throughout this course, students are given opportunities to learn how to select and use resources in their classrooms and school libraries. The major assignment asks small groups of students to develop proposals to build a focused collection of resources for a school library. This group project required students to select an area or topic and then create a selection list of resources they would purchase to build their collection, identify selection criteria, and provide links to professional reviews. Students were also asked to write professional reviews of two titles published in 2013 or 2014 that would be suitable for a high school audience. This term’s groups focused on topics such as high interest/low vocabulary titles, graphic novels, pleasure or recreational reading, and Immigrant Voices. Many of the reviews submitted for this project are now included in this issue of The Deakin. The task of writing reviews that might be published in a reviewing journal made this assignment more relevant and interesting for the students and I am very pleased to be able to share their work with you now.Joanne de GrootAdjunct Assistant ProfessorDepartment of Elementary EducationUniversity of Albertaemail: degroot@ualberta.ca

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2540.168

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Deakin Review of Children s LiteratureSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207