MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063226761 · doi:10.1037/a0018775

Cues to the Imagination in Memoir, Science, and Fiction

2010· article· en· W2063226761 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of General Psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemoirPrejudice (legal term)Construct (python library)PrideFunction (biology)PsychologyUtteranceAestheticsLiteratureArtSocial psychologyPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To understand psychological functions of writing, in which words achieve a certain permanency, we discuss Petrarch's memoir of his ascent of Mont Ventoux, Galileo's scientific account of the laws governing falling bodies, and Cervantes's fictional account of Don Quixote's confrontation with windmills. In each case, written words function as cues, instructions to the reader, to construct scenes in the imagination. We analyze the writing of Jane Austen's (1813/1980) Pride and Prejudice and find three categories of cues: utterance, thought, and observation. These are essential to fiction, but a comparable range of cues occurs in other genres, which have different purposes and can draw on cues in different proportions. Fiction is, perhaps, distinctive in reaching imaginatively toward psychological laws.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.362 · 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