MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Philosophical stories for children and adults: review of the books by Maria daVenza Tillmanns (2020—2021) “Why We Are in Need of Tales”, Toronto, Iguana Books, Part I. 61 p., Part II. 59 p.

2022· article· en· W4285171847 on OpenAlex
Sergey Borisov

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSotsium i vlast/Society and Power · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious, Philosophical, and Educational Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIguanaKey (lock)LiteratureClassicsReflection (computer programming)PhilosophyHistorySociologyArtBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article is a detailed review of the books by Maria daVenza Tillmanns “Why We Are in Need of Tales” (Toronto, Iguana Books, 2020—2021). The books appeared as a result of the author’s many years’ experience in conducting philosophy classes with children (elementary school level). The books are written in the form of a dialogue, which creates the effect of the reader’s presence in the fairy tales plots, stimulating reflection on their philosophical content. The author of the article examines the plots from the standpoint of some key ideas of the world philosophical thought.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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