Space, Time and Narrative: Bakhtin and Ricoeur
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
In the preface to the second volume of Time and Narrative, Paul Ricoeur’s monumental study of the philosophical, historical and hermeneutic implications of the configuration of time in literature, the author describes the intrinsic paradox of examining what he refers to as the ‘fictive experience of time’: On the one hand, in effect, our temporal ways of inhabiting the world remain imaginary to the extent that they exist only in and through the text. On the other hand, they constitute a sort of trascendence within immanence that is precisely what allows for the confrontation with the world of the reader (1985b:6). In order to explore this complex interaction, Ricoeur (1984b: xi) introduces the concept of three-fold mimesis. Related to the concept of plot, mimesis encompasses three stages in our under-standing of the literary expression of time: ‘a reference back to the familiar pre-understanding we have of the order of action; an entry into the realm of poetic composition; and finally a new con-figuration by means of this poetic refiguring of the pre-understood order of action. ’ Ricoeur’s focus on the interaction between the world of the text and the world of the reader as a locus for interpreting the configuration of time in literature calls to mind Mikhail Bakhtin’s essay ‘Forms of Time and of the Chronotope in the Novel ’ in which he proposes a new critical and heuristic tool--
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 | 0.001 | 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 it