MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W79997792 · doi:10.20361/g2bc76

Better Together by Sh. & S. Shapiro

2011· article· en· W79997792 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Tami Oliphant

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtMixing (physics)PleasureVisual artsWifeMusicalPoetryArt historyLiteraturePsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shapiro, Sheryl, and Simon Shapiro. Better Together. Illus. Dušan Petričić. Toronto: Annick Press, 2011. Print. This concept book is infused with a cheerful, slightly mischievous spirit as the authors and illustrator explore a wide variety of, and a broad notion of, mixes. Kids might be familiar with many of the mixes—mixing cinnamon and sugar to spread on toast, mixing water and dirt to create mud, mixing blue and yellow to make green or mixing water and flour to create glue. Other mixes are more abstract—mixing up each team member’s different skills to make a great soccer team or mixing up musical instruments to make raucous music. Each mix is explained by a playful, rhyming poem that is easy-to-read and delightful to read aloud. The writers themselves decided to mix things up—the book is this husband-and-wife’s first collaborative effort and their obvious pleasure in wordplay is apparent. For example, the first poem, which explains what mixes are, contains the line “You stir and squoosh them, squish and moosh them” to create a brand new thing. The lively text is supported by the equally zippy illustrations. The first illustration is a highlight as Petričić shows how mixing the separate ingredients of ideas, paper, and drawings can produce a wonderful new thing: a picture book. The mix of vivid illustrations and energetic text has created a fun book that both kids and parents will enjoy. The book is recommended for children ages 4-7. Recommended: 3 out of 4 stars Reviewer: Tami Oliphant Tami works as a research librarian at the University of Alberta Libraries and for the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Alberta. She earned her Master of Library and Information Studies from the University of Alberta and her doctorate from the University of Western Ontario. She has worked in academic libraries, public libraries, communications and planning, and as a sessional lecturer and researcher at the University of Alberta and the University of Western Ontario.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4070.386

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Deakin Review of Children s LiteratureSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207