MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413150967 · doi:10.3138/cart-2024-0015

Narrative Transportation and the Potential for Cartographers to Create Storytelling Maps That Transport Their Readers

2025· article· en· W4413150967 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carolyn Fish, Samantha Brown, Stuart Steidle-Nix

Bibliographic record

VenueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorytellingNarrativeGeographyVisual artsHistoryArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Narrative transportation – the extent to which a reader is drawn into a story – is a new term for cartographers borrowed from social psychology. Transporting stories lead readers to develop strong emotions and motivations about the content, physically and psychologically immerse themselves, and take on beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours implied in the story. In this article, the authors review the literature on narrative transportation to provide concrete suggestions for cartographers designing storytelling maps. Specifically, they describe how to integrate the key concepts of narrative transportation – cognition, emotion, and imagery – into storytelling maps. Second, they describe how cartographers should hold back information to create intrigue, make causality and non-linear aspects of a story explicit, and create plots and characters that readers can identify to better tell stories with maps. Finally, they conclude by describing how research cartographers might use narrative transportation and specifically the transportation scale to measure how much readers are transported into a storytelling map.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and GeovisualizationSame topicDigital Storytelling and EducationFrench-language works237,207