Reading, Hearing, and Seeing Poetry Performed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study investigated the differences between reading a poem, listening to a poem, and watching a live poetic performance. Stimulus materials included three poems with positive and three with negative themes written by Michelle Hilscher. The 32 participants, including an equal number of males and females in psychology and literature, completed a General Poetry Questionnaire (GPQ) to indicate their experiences and impressions of poetry coming into the study. Following the presentation of each poem, participants answered 14 5-point scale questions in a Poetry Reception Questionnaire (PRQ) which captured cognitive and emotional nuances of poetry reception, and one open-ended question where the participants wrote freely about the poem's meaning. A factor analysis of the GPQ distinguished primarily between participants' responsiveness to the stylistic features and subject matter of poetry. A factor analysis of the PRQ identified global absorption, interpretive engagement, and narrative representation as the primary activities involved in responses to the six poems. A factor analysis of qualitatively derived meaning categories (MC) contrasted an elaboration of style and metaphor as opposed to subject matter and story line. Analyses of variance showed that respondents preferred to read poetry as compared to hearing, or seeing it performed live. By reading poetry themselves, participants were able to explore and interpret the literary devices in poetry in an independent and creative manner, whereas participants who experienced a live performance seemed constrained in their ability to be actively involved in their experience of poetry and therefore found the poetry less engaging.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".