Bibliographic record
Abstract
“fear is a failure of the imagination” T. Findlay, Not Wanted on the Voyage The Study of Narrative Narratives in one form or another permeate virtually all aspects of our society and social experience. Narrative forms are found not only in the context of literature but also in the recollection of life events, in historical documents and textbooks, in scientific explanations of data, in political speeches, and in day-to-day conversation (Nash, 1994: xi). In fact, narrative discourse seems to be intrinsic to our ability to use language to explain and interpret the world around us, and there is an abundance of evidence suggesting that the manner in which we process narrative affects our cognitive and linguistic behavior in general. Therefore, understanding the dynamics of narrative can be instrumental in gaining knowledge about how the mind works (Chafe, 1990); how individuals behave in social and personal relationships (Tannen, 1982, 1984); how they acquire and organize knowledge and analyze themselves, the world, and others around them (Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Lamarque, 1990); how they shape their experience of reality (White, 1981; Ricoeur, 1983); and how they are affected by cultural codes and norms. Because of narrative's ubiquitous nature and its perceived importance in all aspects of social life, it is not surprising that narrative “is no longer the private province of specialists in literature (as if it ever should have been)” (Nash, 1994:xi), and that it is now studied across a wide range of disciplines, such as literary studies, cultural studies, linguistics, discourse processing, cognitive psychology, social psychology, psycholinguistics, cognitive linguistics, artificial intelligence, and, as Nash points out, ethno-methodology and critical legal studies (Wieder, 1974).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.528 | 0.298 |
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".