Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the end of a long day I sometimes like to relax by reading children's books.They have three advantages over adult fiction: they're often funny, I can finish one in an evening, and they are usually infused with hope, not despair.So I got to thinking, after I read one recently, how might some of these fictional childhood characters react to present crises?How would Anne of Green Gables respond to climate change?How would the Paper Bag Princess tackle child poverty?And what would Jacob Two-Two say to Ralph Klein? 2 I laugh at these questions, but I'm half serious.Our present models of social engagement haven't taken me far enough.I don't know how to solve these problems.As Elizabeth May (former head of the Sierra Club of Canada, practicing Anglican, and now Green Party of Canada leader) says in her excellent book, How to Save the World in Your Spare Time, "Politics has been described as 'the art of the possible.'It is all about compromise and balancing interests.Never make the mistake of thinking the role of the citizen activist is the same.Our role is the art of the impossible." 3 So what are we to do?One thing these childhood heroes share in abundance is the courage and daring to tackle the impossible.Rachel Lynde, the fire-breathing dragon, and the Hooded Fang are not exactly pushovers!Nor is Naaman, of whom we heard in our first reading, a pushover.As the major warrior for the king of Aram, he shows decided antipathy to following the prophet Elijah's advice to wash in the river Jordan.And yet the person who mustered up the courage to get him even to consider seeking this healing is the little nameless slave girl.She had five counts against her: she is a slave, female, young, poor, a foreigner.All reasons not to venture a word out of place.Yet in her boldness she speaks the words that lead to Naaman's transformation, literally and figuratively.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.002 |
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".