MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4299890902 · doi:10.3138/jeunesse.4.2.15

Kevin Major's <i>Hold Fast</i> and the Critical Reception of a Milestone Canadian Novel for Young Adults

2012· article· en· W4299890902 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Paulette Rothbauer

Bibliographic record

VenueJeunesse Young People Texts Cultures · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilestonePublishingNarrativeProfessionalizationSociologyHistoryCanadian literatureField (mathematics)Media studiesGender studiesPolitical scienceSocial scienceLawLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the critical reception of Kevin Major’s Hold Fast, published in 1978, as a hinge event in the field of production of Canadian children’s literature. It is argued that this novel represents a Canadian version of the social realism narrative that was well established in the United States by the mid-1970s and that recognizable conventions of this type of literature augmented its positive reception. Equally important for its continued celebration as a notable work, however, were its uniquely Canadian themes and motifs. These themes are explored through a close examination of reviews and commentary published between 1978 and 2006. Questions are raised about reviewers’ refusal to situate the title against earlier publishing for young people in Canada and about the role that the professionalization of young adult literature and librarianship played in the reception of the title.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0340.023
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJeunesse Young People Texts CulturesSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207