MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338299047 · doi:10.1093/llc/fqv072

Using Models of Lexical Style to Quantify Free Indirect Discourse in Modernist Fiction

2016· article· en· W2338299047 on OpenAlexaff
Julian Brooke, Adam Hammond, Graeme Hirst

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Scholarship in the Humanities · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStyle (visual arts)NarrativeLinguisticsCharacter (mathematics)Computer scienceLiteratureHistoryArtPhilosophyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modernist authors such as Virginia Woolf and James Joyce greatly expanded the use of ‘free indirect discourse’, a form of third-person narration that is strongly influenced by the language of a viewpoint character. Unlike traditional approaches to analyzing characterization using common words, such as those based on Burrows (1987), the nature of free indirect discourse and the sparseness of our data require that we understand the stylistic connotations of rarer words and expressions which cannot be gleaned directly from our target texts. To this end, we apply methods introduced in our recent work to derive information with regards to six stylistic aspects from a large corpus of texts from Project Gutenberg. We thus build high-coverage, finely grained lexicons that include common multiword collocations. Using this information along with student annotations of two modernist texts, Woolf’s To The Lighthouse and Joyce’s The Dead, we confirm that free indirect discourse does, at a stylistic level, reflect a mixture of narration and direct speech, and we investigate the extent to which social attributes of the various characters (in particular age, class, and gender) are reflected in their lexical stylistic profile.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Scholarship in the HumanitiesSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207