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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article takes as its main point of departure a body of empirical research on reading and text processing, and makes particular reference to the type of experiments conducted in Egidi and Gerrig (2006) and Rapp and Gerrig (2006). Broadly put, these experiments (i) explore the psychology of readers’ preferences for narrative outcomes, (ii) examine the way readers react to characters’ goals and actions, and (iii) investigate how readers tend to identify with characters’ goals the more ‘urgently’ those goals are narrated. The present article signals how stylistics can productively enrich such experimental work. Stylistics, it is argued, is well equipped to deal with subtle and nuanced variations in textual patterns without losing sight of the broader cognitive and discoursal positioning of readers in relation to these patterns. Making particular reference to what might constitute narrative ‘urgency’, the article develops a model which amalgamates different strands of contemporary research in narrative stylistics. This model advances and elaborates three key components: a Stylistic Profile, a Burlesque Block and a Kuleshov Monitor. Developing analyses of, and informal informant tests on, examples of both fiction and film, the article calls for a more rounded and sophisticated understanding of style in empirical research on subjects’ responses to patterns in narrative.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it