MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7062536287

TV horror-fantasy for children as transnational genre: Round the Twist, generic subversions, and quality Australian children's television

2022· article· en· W7062536287 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermal Analysis in Power Transmission
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntertainmentNarrativeTelevision seriesQuality (philosophy)Television studiesAction (physics)Television industryProduction (economics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the 1990s, the horror anthology series became a popular mode of children’s television, influenced in large part by the Canadian-US series Goosebumps (1995–1998) and Are You Afraid of the Dark? (1990–2000), two live action children’s series popular across many Western countries in the 1990s. This chapter examines Australian fantasy-horror television series, Round the Twist (ACTF, 1989–2001), exploring how its narrative and aesthetic devices both resonate with and deviate from the exceedingly popular Canadian-US series Goosebumps and AYAOTD? Unlike Goosebumps and AYAOTD?, which were funded and produced by for-profit production companies and cable channels for children (Cinar/Nickelodeon and YTV/Fox Kids, respectively), Round the Twist was produced by Australian non-profit production and policy hub the Australian Children’s Television Foundation (ACTF). As a result, Round The Twist presents a particularly complex example of fantasy-horror television for children that reveals much about how Australian approaches to children’s entertainment differed from those in North America in the 1990s.

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)0.003
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicThermal Analysis in Power TransmissionFrench-language works237,207