MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004781409 · doi:10.1075/ssol.1.1.16oat

Fiction and its study as gateways to the mind

2011· article· en· W2004781409 on OpenAlexaff
Keith Oatley

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Study of Literature · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationTheory of mindFunction (biology)PsychologyAestheticsSociologyCognitive scienceEpistemologySocial psychologyArtCognitionCommunicationPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a growing understanding of how the mind and brain work in readers’ and writers’ engagement with fiction. This is worthwhile because fiction occupies much time in people’s lives and because it enables them to understand others and themselves. At the same time, the future of research in this area will contribute to psychology generally, with insights into the model-making function of mind, relating by means of conversation, empathetic theory-of-mind, imagination, and personal transformation.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Study of LiteratureSame topicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive FunctionFrench-language works237,207