MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286420722 · doi:10.3138/jeunesse.11.2.225

“It’s Such a Small Planet, Why Do You Need Borders?”: Seeing Flying in <i>Le Petit Prince</i> and Its Screen Adaptations

2019· article· en· W4286420722 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aneesh Barai

Bibliographic record

VenueJeunesse Young People Texts Cultures · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Gender, and Advertising
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSAINTNovellaPlanetArt historyHistoryCartographyEnvironmental ethicsSociologyGeographyHumanitiesArtPhilosophyLiteratureAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I analyze the potential positive impact of aerial perspectives on children’s understanding of their place in the world, with Le Petit Prince envisioning a borderless world of ecological and social unity. The novellas of the pilot and author Antoine de Saint-Exupéry encourage their projected viewers to see the interconnectedness of all life, including the life of the planet itself. Most notably, Le Petit Prince raises environmental responsibility in discussing the prince’s planet and undermines ideas of national difference as the prince views the earth from space. Visual adaptations of Le Petit Prince by Stanley Donen and Will Vinton pick up on Saint-Exupéry’s phenomenology of perception and translate them through visual techniques into politicized aerial perspectives. Looking at Le Petit Prince and its film adaptations, this article argues that aerial perspectives work to transform children’s perceptions and break down bordered mappings of the world.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJeunesse Young People Texts CulturesSame topicMedia, Gender, and AdvertisingFrench-language works237,207