Are Computational Literary Studies Structuralist?
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
In this contribution we discuss what we call the "digital humanities-as-structuralism" narrative for the case of computational literary studies. To better understand the entailed criticism, we start with some background for the non-computational aspects in this narrative. First, we single out major criticisms against structuralism. We then introduce a general and theory-independent model of literary text analysis and discuss hypothesis development and justification in literary studies. This builds the ground for our analysis of structuralism criticisms in computational literary studies. In our discussion of the "digital humanities-as-structuralism" narrative, we examine the use of computational methods for the exploration and confirmation of interpretation hypotheses and its potential relation to structuralist issues. We argue that the "digital humanities-as-structuralism" narrative may be productive where it cautions against reductionist approaches, but it is not appropriate for describing exploratory or partial approaches and the presentation of their findings. There, the computational approaches should rather be seen as enabling connectivity and fostering the joint endeavor of understanding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it