Turning Attention Inwards: Seventeenth-Century Poetry of Interoception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Interoception,” a term that has attracted a significant amount of attention over the past few years, refers broadly to the ability to sense what goes on inside the body: the rhythm of circulation, pangs of hunger, breathing patterns, fluctuations in mood, the movements of a child in the womb, and countless other processes with different levels of accessibility to the conscious mind. This article claims that attention to the inside of the body is a vital part of the experience of poetry in early modern times and that poetic language can be a key part of the cultural training that shapes the perception of visceral landscapes. The discussion follows the lead of several shared traits between poetry and interoception, including rhythmic patterning, intermittence, strong experiential potential, predictive processing, and cumulative effects. For this purpose, it draws from recent work in the field of cognitive science, and also from lyric theory, work on poetic form, and a range of texts on early modern poetry, history, and culture. The argument for a “poetry of interoception” is tied to the idea that a number of cultural factors align in the seventeenth century and sharpen the interest in the inside of the body as changing medical paradigms meet the old vehicle for attention to subjectivity that is the lyric mode. These factors operate across Europe and Colonial America, and thus the poems that are used as examples belong to different languages and national traditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".