Daniel S. Moak, From the New Deal to the War on Schools: Race, Inequality, and the Rise of the Punitive Education State
Bibliographic record
Abstract
chapters will be equally of interest to researchers in the history of children's literature and childhood, to educators at all levels, and to specialists in Canadian and Atlantic literature.The collection ends with "Afterwords," a grouping of interviews, letters, and creative responses, which hints at what makes this collection so valuable and still rare in academic literary studies.That section includes interviews with Satu Koskimies and Vilja-Tuulia Huotarinen, authors of a novel, Emilia Kent, which picks up where Emily's Quest leaves off; Holly Cinnamon's beautiful poem about "that queer redheaded girl next door" (290); a piece by Rosalee Peppard Lockyer that imagines Katie Maurice (Anne's imaginary friend) writing a poem for "My Maud" (295); and Kit Pearson's letter to Maud that ends "your protégé, Kit Pearson" (302) These end-pieces insist that the conversation with Montgomery's work continues among readers and writers, and, whether it was intentional or not, the writing throughout is conversational, lucid, and accessible to all adult readers of Montgomery.The collection is concerned with the wide conversation that surrounds Montgomery's novels, and it models that broad audience and conversation.It is a book both for scholars and for the "Maud Squad."
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".