Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laurie Graff, You Have to Kiss a Lot of Frogs (Ontario: Red Dress Ink, 2004).This book reminded me of the diary I had up until I was around twenty. I once tried turning this diary into a novel by changing the characters into fictional versions that interacted better with each other. Probably most little girls have such diaries, and when they send them to publishers, they just don't sell them. Why did Laurie Graff's publisher go for it? Clearly the publisher was right because this book is a best-seller, as many of those girls that write diaries or were/ are frustrated with the mate-search process bought this book.This is a different formula from a standard romance novel. In a standard romance plot there are typically two member of opposite sexes, and perhaps one or more competing mates that make love-triangles with them who woo each other, and finally the central pair merges together sexually or legally. Rachel Gibson's Not Another Bad Date (Avon Romance series) also summarizes several bad dates, but then focuses on a single love interest and hope for the main heroine. Thus, Graff can't be blamed for writing a formulaic novel because there are few other novels that use this formula.The heroine of the novel is Karrie Kline, who describes some of the most memorable relationships and surprising dates that she had over the prior decades of dating-life. The chapter headings are in a similar format to a film script, naming the location (city, place), and date. The chapters jump between different years, as far back as her childhood in 1969 to the present when the novel was written, around 2003. The bulk of the dates is what happened between the time Karrie turned 30 and turning 45 in 2003, an age when the motherly clock is ticking very loudly for Jewish women especially. Each chapter has a repeating formula. One, Karrie discusses a date or a set of dates with a guy (who might or might not have been discussed in earlier chapters, some guys get as many as three chapters, but most are discarded in one). Two, Karrie discusses a new funny disaster her career is taking, such as a failure of a play that she was prepping for years for, or not winning a part in a commercial. Three, Karrie mentions a side-topic or character and her relationship with them or it, such as Christmas for Jews, her parents living in Florida, her gay friend with a good job that she wants. Four, across the chapter Karrie occasionally discusses or thinks about the possibility of marriage and children, versus the single life. These four movements are pretty repetitive and while the discussions and situations are occasionally funny, there is no suspense created and no emotional bonding to any of the characters. Karrie occasionally writes that she has become especially attached to a comedian she was dating for over a year, or another character, but these emotions are not supported with actions or with believable dialogues. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".