MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411936976 · doi:10.24124/2025/30491

A monster that never truly leaves: Representing depression in young adult fantasy literature

2025· dissertation· en· W4411936976 on OpenAlexaff
Tierney Watkinson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonsterFantasyDepression (economics)PsychoanalysisPsychologyArtArt historyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

,This thesis examines the portrayal of depression in young adult (ages 12-18) fantasy fiction, with a focus on monsters as metaphors for depression. Depressive symptoms often exist as background in young adult fantasy, or as temporary afflictions until the conflict of the story is resolved. In reality, depression is far from a quirky character trait, and has no magical “cure.” My introductory essay examines fantasy as a vehicle for exploring difficult topics such as mental health issues. I investigate the benefits and drawbacks of portraying depression as a metaphorical monster, consider the concept of bibliotherapy, and explain the reasoning behind my own plot devices. In Limbo, my novella, I portray two teenage characters: one is experiencing depression before the story begins, and the second only experiences depressive symptoms as a direct result of the story’s monster. Limbo was written with the intent of both informing readers who have never experienced depression before of its potential effects on a person, and giving readers currently experiencing depressive symptoms a name for what haunts them.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207