The affective allure – a phenomenological dialogue with David Miall’s studies of foregrounding and feeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper attempts to rescue the notion of foregrounding from the prevailing focus on defamiliarization. It does so by engaging in a phenomenological dialogue with David Miall’s account of foregrounding and feeling and Viktor Shklovsky’s discussion of literary device and aesthetic function. In particular, it contextualizes Miall’s proposal of the response to foregrounding as a feeling-guided process involving boundary crossings, a defamiliarization-refamiliarization cycle, and self-transformative feelings within Husserl’s philosophical analysis of sense constitution. Miall’s feeling explorations and explications find their counterpart in Husserl’s active egoic turning toward the affective allure and enticement of affective resonances. Using Miall’s work as a touchstone, some frequently overlooked aspects of Shklovsky’s conception of ostranenie are clarified by drawing on Husserl’s notions of the natural attitude, active and passive synthesis, affective allure, expressive explication, and awakenings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".