Shakespeare and cognition: Scientism, theory, and 4E
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
Abstract Since 2001, there have been copious applications of cognitive science to Shakespeare and some to the work of other early modern authors, but have these yielded any new perspectives on the drama or poetry of this time period? This article distinguishes scientism or theoretical approaches that simply uphold scientific findings from interdisciplinary work that prompts scholars to revisit the literature of Shakespeare or other authors anew. In doing so, the article troubles the uniform, normative, and seemingly apolitical nature of cognitive science as well as the ways in which this framework has in some cases created a cognitive outlook that removes the brain from its lived experiences in exterior environs. Because Shakespeare's cultural capital has made him central to cognitive studies in literature, the article's debunking of quasiscientific approaches has wider implications for cognitive examinations of literature, given the common merits and regressions that have resulted from this canonical inclination to focus on a single author.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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