Phenomenological and Quantitative Analyses of Absorption in Literary Passages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phenomenology of reader absorption was investigated using quantitative and qualitative measures. The 12 male and 12 female participants ranged in age between 19 and 53. There were two parts to the study that were counterbalanced across participants. In one part, they read two excerpted literary passages contrasting emotional and descriptive styles of writing and rated them on an 11-item questionnaire. In another part, they were interviewed regarding the general experience of being absorbed in a book and about a specific absorbing text of their choice. Phenomenological analysis of interview data revealed experiential properties (corporeality, sensory perceptions, spatiality, temporality, and agency) and underlying processes (e.g., reader's perspective, attention, familiarity with situation) that shaped the reading activity. Factor analyses of the verbal rating scales and of the frequency tables for properties and processes both contrasted empathetic and sympathetic reading modes. These were also revealed in close (i.e., spontaneous and experiential) and far (i.e., purposeful and inferential) reader orientations which appear to have reflected individual differences in reading styles. The pedagogical implications of the findings are also discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".