MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402220368 · doi:10.11647/obp.0377.04

4. The Family Square

2024· book-chapter· en· W4402220368 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Barbara C. Fisher

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Book Publishers · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSquare (algebra)Computer scienceMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“The Family Square,” an invented family name, refers the period when all four Kiplings were joyfully reunited in India. From the age fifteen to twenty-one, Trix was extremely happy as one side of the square, spending the winter months in Lahore and the hot months in the cool hill stations of Dalhousie and Simla. All four Kiplings wrote articles, stories, poems, and reviews. Trix and Rudyard created poetic parodies from Wordsworth to Whitman, which were published in 1884 in a little book called Echoes. One year later, with encouragement from Rudyard, Trix published “The Haunted Cabin,” a seemingly innocuous ghost story, featuring a little girl and her careless mother. A series of “Plain Tales from the Hills,” was published in 1886-7 in the Civil and Military Gazette. Most of the sharply observed stories were written by Rudyard, but many were written by eighteen-year-old Trix. Published anonymously, all were assumed to be by the same hand. Graceful and clever, Trix rejected numerous suitors, until maternal pressure eventually wore her down, and she accepted a starchy Scotsman, ten years her senior. John Murchison Fleming, always called Jack, came from a solid soldiering family and had little in common with artistic Trix. She married him on her twenty-first birthday, trusting in his assurances that she would learn to love him.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1100.035

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Book PublishersSame topicHistorical Gender and Feminism StudiesFrench-language works237,207