Bibliographic record
Abstract
rade-school humour is not something that one normally associates with scholarly books from university presses, but in the final pages of this wide-ranging and thought-provoking study, lawyerhistorian Jamie Benidickson carries readers back to the schoolyard with a story about a six-year-old caller asking the hosts of a Calgary phone-in radio show why Tigger put his head in the toilet.While listeners with fond memories of Christopher Robin and Eeyore and the other characters who wandered A.A. Milne's Hundred Acre Wood may have racked their memories for an answer, the anxious folks in the studio wondered what was coming next.The answer was predictably simple, if not quite what most people expected: "He was looking for Pooh."Like most successful wordplays, this double entendre, delightfully calculated to produce uncontrollable giggles among kindergarten children, works on several levels.It is both innocuous and arresting.People don't normally look in the toilet for anything, least of all what they might most expect to find there.In the First World, at least, the toilet is a thoroughly taken-for-granted part of the household sanitation system.It is designed to hide -in some countries it is still known by the earlier, less euphemistic name of water closet -and to carry away, by the flushing action of water, human excreta.The room in which it is housed is a sanctuary in which ubiquitous, but now intensely private, actions can be performed covertly, and the device itself provides seemingly quick, quiet, and effective disposal of the evidence of these necessary deeds.Together, the terms "toilet," "WC,"
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.778 | 0.790 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".