Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esbaum, Jill. Tom’s Tweet. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011. Print. This delightful picture book is about an unlikely friendship between a hulking cat named Tom and a tiny bird called “Tweet”. The story begins with Tom feasting his eyes on Tweet, ready to gobble him up for breakfast, when he quickly realizes that his prey is simply too skinny to eat. Tom is about to leave yet he finds it impossible to ignore Tweet’s incessant tweeting, so he decides that he’ll put a stop to the ruckus by finding a juicy worm for his hungry friend. Hilarity ensues when Tom selects a suitable wiggler and gingerly mashes it to a pulp in his mouth to make it more digestible for Tweet. Nota bene: the picture of Tom’s bulging face as he squirms with the worm in his mouth may provoke hearty laughter from readers of all ages. The engaging story continues with animated scenes that show Tom returning Tweet to his home nest after being pursued by angry Mama Tweet. Later in the evening Tom realizes that he actually misses that “bothersome bird”, so readers will be pleased to see that Tweet returns the next day. Tom declares, “Tarnation! You have to stay up there. You cannot be my friend! I’m a cat!” The book concludes with Tom “tweety-sitting” for Mama Tweet, now that she sees Tom as a lovable softie and not a threat to her feathered offspring. The flow of events in Tom’s Tweet has a musical cadence, and the story begs to be read aloud. All of the illustrations were created using Photoshop, and they have an irresistible quality that is both fun and colourful. A minor quibble with the book is the colour and choice of font, which is not an ideal pairing with the charming illustrations. Nevertheless, “Tom’s Tweet” is an excellent choice to introduce young readers to the concept of friendship. Recommended: 3 out of 4 stars Reviewer: Robert Desmarais
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.238 | 0.200 |
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".