Perceptions and influences of literature on psychological processes and dispositions in contemporary society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to illuminate certain aspects of the intersection between literature and psychology, particularly highlighting how literary works can be a significant source of data for psychological research and of deeper understanding of the dispositions and behaviours of oneself, others, and the society as a whole. Literature, as an integral part of cultural heritage, serves as one of the key sources of socialization, contributing to the formation of individual and group identities, as well as personal values and dispositions. The paper particularly emphasizes the contribution of the research group from Toronto, which has pointed to the active process of mind simulation in the readers of fiction through experimental and other studies. This process AIDS in the development of empathy, interpersonal skills, and emotional growth. The interaction between literary works, which, as an art form, are non-dogmatic and open to interpretation, and the reader's dispositions and values, always yields new and unique effects and understandings of the text. Readers possess numerous interpersonal differences: intelligence, openness, immersion, the desire to confirm their own views etc., all leading to different understandings of and benefits from the same novel. Literature plays a crucial role in shaping, maintaining or challenging collective identities, especially in the societies undergoing crises and rapid changes, such as ours in recent decades. Attention is paid to illustrating these processes in contemporary Serbian literature. The connections between literature and psychology are numerous and complex, and this paper presents a selection and overview of some of the most important aspects of these connections, highlighting their significance in the contemporary context.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".