MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385542455 · doi:10.30998/inference.v5i3.8342

MOTIVE AND CHARACTER EDUCATIONAL VALUES IN NOVEL THE INVENTION OF HUGO CABRET BY BRIAN SELZNICK

2023· article· en· W4385542455 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yatmi Yatmi

Bibliographic record

VenueINFERENCE Journal of English Language Teaching · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Methods and Media Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsCharacter (mathematics)Character educationValue (mathematics)Reading (process)CuriosityAction (physics)PsychologySociologyPsychoanalysisEpistemologySocial psychologyLiteraturePhilosophyLinguisticsComputer scienceArtMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This is a descriptive qualitative research that uses a psychological approach. The data source of this research is the novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick, publisher of Scholastic Press, New York (original version) in 2007, Mizan Fantasi (Indonesian version) in 2012. The research data are in the form of words, phrases and sentences that related with the main character's motives and the character education values in the novel. Data obtained by reading and note taking techniques. This objective of this study to analyze the existence of the main character's action motives and the value of character education in the novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick. The results of the analysis obtained the following conclusions: 1. Hugo's motives as the main character there are 20 quotes, namely as follows: a) motives for physical needs there are 3 quotations, b) motives for security and safety needs are 4 quotations, c) motives for trust and compassion consist from 5 quotations, d) the motive for self-esteem needs there are 3 quotations, e). The motives for self-actualization needs are 6 quotations. The prominent action motive is the motive for self-actualization needs. 2. The value of character education contained in Brian's novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret, consisting of; a) religious 2 quotes, b) honest 4 quotes, c) discipline 3 quotes, d) hard work 7 quotes, e) creative 2 quotes, f) independent 1 quote, g) curiosity 4 quotes, h) appreciate achievement 2 quotes, i) friends 3 quotes, j) peace love 1 quote, k) likes to read 2 quotes, l) social care 4 quotes, m) responsibility 2 quotes.</p>

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFERENCE Journal of English Language TeachingSame topicEducational Methods and Media UseFrench-language works237,207