Examining the representation of landscape and its emotional value in German-Swiss fiction between 1840 and 1940
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a quantitative analysis of the representation and affective encoding of fictional space in a corpus of 125 Swiss literary prose texts of the 19th and early 20th Century written in German, offering a contribution to both spatial and affective literary studies. Motivated by questions about the iconic dichotomy between ‘urban’ and ‘rural/natural’ space in literary works (Sengle; Fournier; Nell and Weiland) – and in Swiss literature around 1900 in particular (Rehm) – we use computational methods to detect and examine how different types of space are distributed and affectively encoded in German-Swiss literature. Taking into account the complexity of cultural perceptions and representations of space across history, we examine the presence of ‘urban’ and ‘rural/natural’ fictional spaces and their potential role in constructing a ‘Swiss’ national literature (Böhler; Zimmer), and their affective encoding. In order to do this, we first compiled a comprehensive dictionary of named and non-named spatial entities in the broad spatial categories RURAL and URBAN, and examined the presence of sentiment and emotions (valence and discrete emotions) and their ‘strength’ (arousal) in relation to these. We used current state-of-the-art sentiment lexicons for German available to the digital humanities community. Similarly to Heuser et al., we mapped the spatial entities and the sentiment lexicons onto our corpus, and focused on spans of +/-50 words around the detected entities, in order to examine the specific sentiment and emotions related to space. In an exploratory analysis, we offer here a first-time data-driven perspective on rural and urban fictional space, incorporating the dimension of affective encoding of space systematically.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".