MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162197916 · doi:10.59236/emro.v25i9a8075

Where the Butterflies Go

2023· article· W7162197916 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amanda McCormick

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Media Reviews Online · 2023
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicAnimal and Plant Science Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonarch butterflyButterflyState (computer science)Citizen scienceShot (pellet)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distributed by Collective Eye Films, 1315 SE 20th Ave. #3, Portland OR 97214; 971-236-2056Produced by Fraser Jones, Jillian Bass, Salathiel Lopez Campos, Trevor May, and Kevin WallDirected by Fraser Jones2021, Streaming, 72 mins The remarkable migration of the monarch butterfly from the northeastern United States to central Mexico has entranced many a filmmaker; WorldCat indexes over 100 such films. In a new entry to the genre Where the Butterflies Go director and lead Fraser Jones documents his quest to educate the “world” about this fascinating species as he follows the monarch butterflies' migration from Canada to Mexico. Along the way, he interviews several monarch butterfly enthusiasts and scholars, such as a volunteer at a monarch butterfly sanctuary in Illinois, the director of Monarch Watch at the University of Kansas, and a biology professor from Oklahoma State University. The interviews are informative and discuss topics such as global warming and the role of pollinators in our ecosystem. Another segment highlights a visit to a citizen science event in Ontario, Canada where we see how monarch butterflies are tagged with an electronic chip to track their migration. The last interview of the film is a lovely segment with a park manager at the Sierra Chincua Sanctuary in Mexico, where we finally see the monarch butterfly in the wild. It’s hard not to be charmed by the earnest and enthusiastic energy of the protagonist in this film, especially when he shares that he was inspired to be a nature educator by the late Steve Irwin. The film is strongest when he engages with his interview subjects, kids and adults alike. But there are times when the film veers into the absurd with the behind-the-scenes footage, which does not add to the main story. The personal reflections shared by Jones are touching, but it is a difficult task to sync that narrative with the educational focus of the film, and unfortunately the film fails on this point. The film might be best used to illustrate the importance of citizen science in supporting local ecosystems. It is recommended for students in high school and above.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.067

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.294 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational Media Reviews OnlineSame topicAnimal and Plant Science EducationFrench-language works237,207