Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artiklen fokuserer på den litterære genre creative nonfiction. På dansk har denne genre endnu ikke noget navn, men på baggrund af otte danske værker inden for genren samt en diskussion af den amerikanske terminologi inden for området foreslås betegnelsen faglitterære fortællinger eller alternativt fortællende faglitteratur. Med de samme otte værker som cases undersøges dernæst, hvilke elementer genren typisk består af, samt hvilke hovedkvaliteter den har at tilbyde læserne. Med henblik på analysen af elementerne konstrueres en facetmodel, mens hovedkvaliteterne overfor læserne analyseres på baggrund af en teori om læseformer. Den første undersøgelse viser, at genren i udpræget grad fremtræder som en hybrid mellem skønlitteratur og faglitteratur, men at den i visse henseender er en radikal genre snarere end en hybrid. I forhold til læseren konkluderes det, at genren tilbyder såvel faktuel viden om verden som æstetiske (læse)oplevelser, men også at læseren, i kraft af hybridformen, må være i stand til at veksle mellem forskellige læsestrategier under læsningen. Afslutningsvis karakteriseres værkerne i forhold til velkendte type- og genrebestemmelser i faglitteratur og skønlitteratur.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.021 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".