Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Delicious Monsters by Liselle Sambury April Spisak Sambury, Liselle Delicious Monsters. McElderry, 2023 [512p] Trade ed. ISBN 9781665903493 $21.99 E-book ed. ISBN 9781665903516 $10.99 Reviewed from digital galleys R Gr. 9-12 The first of two narrators in this chilling supernatural story, Daisy hopes that a drastic move hours out of Toronto to a deserted mansion will be what she needs to reset her life. But she’s also seeing ghosts, reacting to being dumped by a (disturbingly older) man by stalking him and his new girlfriend, and struggling to understand and connect with her divorced parents. Ten years later, Brittney is trying to carve out her own identity as a Black web series creator, exploring the mansion that her mother claims turned her from an abusive, neglectful parent into supermom worthy of social media stardom. The horror elements come in late and therefore have less of an impact on the novel than the generational trauma that plays out, which is memorable for its realistic portrayal of toxic relationships and the limited choices they often create. Things do eventually get pretty gross and distressing once each girl is in the mansion, with an unexpected amount of enormous, writhing maggots that act as protection in one’s brain, ghosts creeping along everywhere, and a hungry house. Although there is an uneasy balance between the Black girl survival stories and horror, the resulting novel speaks to triumph—over ghosts, over abuse, and over the constant stream of messages (from society, family, themselves) that are aimed at keeping them trapped forever, literally in a murder house or metaphorically in their own miseries. [End Page 198] Copyright © 2022 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".