Book Review: Xinran Yang, A Poetics of Minds and Madness: Fiction, Cognition and Interpretation, Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2023; ⅹⅹⅲ + 278 pp.: ISBN 978-981-99-5248-9, $93.45 (hbk)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive literary studies, in its various forms, is burgeoning into an important interdisciplinary research paradigm. This field attaches much importance to the actual reader’s engagement, emotional and cognitive. While many cognitive literary studies focus on the normal mind in literature, few attend to the abnormal. Against this background, Xinran Yang initiates a cognitive narratological study of the madness-narrative nexus with special reference to Ken Kessy’s magnum opus One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, published by the Viking Press in 1962. Yang’s efforts on fictional madness have theoretically and methodologically blazed new trails in cognitive narratology, cognitive poetics and madness narratives, enlightened the normality from the abnormality, and offered insights for future cognitive literary studies. This article first reviews and then re-evaluates the relevant issues.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.020 |
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".