Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bar-el, Dan. That One Spooky Night. Toronto: Kids Can Press. 2012. Print. Especially appealing during the Halloween season or for those students who appreciate a good semi-scary story any time of the year, That One Spooky Night delivers three off-the-wall short and spooky tales. Child protagonists who are all far from pillars of good behaviour set the stage for a more comedic and less truly scary approach to the zany horrors that happen to them. In Broom With A View, a young girl chooses a witch costume for Halloween but accidentally switches brooms with a real witch. On Halloween night, the broom whisks her away to its real owner, a cheeky but good-hearted witch who shows her younger counterpart how to really have fun on Halloween night without being a brat. In 10,000 Tentacles Under the Tub, two mischievous brothers, who, after a night of getting into trouble and almost overwhelming their father with their misbehaviour, find themselves locked in an epic battle in the underwater world they discover at the bottom of their bathtub. In The Fang Gang, four girls terrorize local children until they find themselves facing a foursome of real vampires in disguise who give them a dose of their own medicine. Illustrator David Huyck’s use of muted colours and soft edges throughout the book serve to both unify the stories and transmit an ethereal quality to the images. The different colour schemes used in each story are particularly effective for transporting the reader into foreign, underwater worlds and sinister vampire lairs. Wordless panels are interspersed throughout, further drawing the reader into sullen moods which effectively contrast the zany storyline making That One Spooky Night an entertaining read for upper primary and intermediate readers. Recommended: 3 out of 4 stars Reviewer: Annabelle Pendry Annabelle Pendry loves her job as Teacher Librarian at Mount Pleasant Elementary in Vancouver, BC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.325 | 0.239 |
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".