Readers’ Emotions: A Plurilingual Perspective
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 focuses on the differential emotional power of languages in the book-reading practices of plurilingual readers. Within a plurilingual perspective, it aims at adding nuance to the “emotional contexts of learning hypothesis” and the “theory of language embodiment”. This qualitative study is based on semi-structured interviews with 24 adult plurilingual readers living in Catalonia, Ile-de-France, French Basque Country, and western Switzerland. Some of the participants indicate that they have felt intense emotions while reading in languages they did not learn and do not use in highly emotional contexts. It can be inferred that cultural goods consumption, among other factors, may affect the emotional force of languages. Difficulties expressed by participants in feeling intense emotions or in appreciating books in family languages that are dominated languages – according to Bourdieu’s conception of dominant and dominated languages – suggest that sociolinguistic inequalities may also be of crucial importance in reading-language emotionality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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