MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982853841 · doi:10.2466/pms.2003.96.3.990

Readers' Opinions of Romantic Poetry are Consistent with Emotional Measures Based on the <i>Dictionary of Affect in Language</i>

2003· article· en· W1982853841 on OpenAlexaff
Cynthia Whissell

Bibliographic record

VenuePerceptual and Motor Skills · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)RomancePsychologyPoetryConstruct (python library)RomanticismSocial psychologyLinguisticsCognitive psychologyLiteratureComputer scienceCommunicationPsychoanalysisArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A principal components analysis of 68 volunteers' subjective ratings of 20 excerpts of Romantic poetry and of Dictionary of Affect scores for the same excerpts produced four components representing Pleasantness, Activation, Romanticism, and Nature. Dictionary measures and subjective ratings of the same constructs loaded on the same factor. Results are interpreted as providing construct validity for the Dictionary of Affect.

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)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptual and Motor SkillsSame topicColor perception and designFrench-language works237,207