MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W60421556 · doi:10.20361/g2hp4q

50 Underwear Questions: a Bare-All History by T. L. Kyi

2012· article· en· W60421556 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Trish Chatterley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMartial Arts: Techniques, Psychology, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClothingVisual artsHistoryMedia studiesArtArt historySociologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kyi, Tanya L. 50 Underwear Questions: a Bare-All History. Toronto: Annick Press, 2011. Have you ever wondered where long johns and jock straps got their names? Or where the phrase ‘going commando’ came from? Then this is the book for you! This book, framed as a series of 50 questions and responses, takes the reader through a social history of underwear from the ancient times of the Egyptian pharaohs through to the present day. While much of the focus is on Western Europe and North America, the reader also learns briefly about undergarments in India, Japan, and a few other regions. The book consists of seven chapters replete with fun-filled facts and humorous cartoon images. Throughout are so-called ‘private parts,’ which are quick trivia bits printed on underwear labels. There are also several recommended activities called ‘garment games’ for readers to pursue, such as how to tie your own subligaculum (i.e. gladiator underwear) or tie-dye a pair of boxer shorts (with parental supervision, of course). This well-researched book informs the reader not just about what was worn, but why. Fads and fashions of the various times were influenced by the need for protection from the elements, the wearer’s social class, the onset of war, or in more recent times, the apparel of models and actors in commercials and movies. This entertaining and educational read is intended for children ages nine and up, but is fun and fast for adults to read as well. There are two previous books in the 50 questions series which are about poisons and fire. If they are anything like the underwear book, they will be enjoyable books to read as well! Highly Recommended: 4 out of 4 starsReviewer: Trish ChatterleyTrish is a Public Services Librarian for the John W. Scott Health Sciences Library at the University of Alberta. In her free time she enjoys dancing, gardening, and reading books of all types.

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)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.018

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.316 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Deakin Review of Children s LiteratureSame topicMartial Arts: Techniques, Psychology, and EducationFrench-language works237,207