Bibliographic record
Abstract
I was born and raised in the countryside in Sussex, in England, which I have since regarded as a principal component of my later interests, particularly the writing of the poets Wordsworth and Coleridge.This led me to specialize in Romantic literature, and to the study of the experiential perspective afforded by literary reading. The experience of literarinessIn this presentation I argue for the view that literary reading is distinctive in relation to other linguistic and media experiences, and that this capacity rests in part on the embodied nature of our responses to literariness (as I will term it).Among other features, the distinctiveness of literature is indicated by its transcultural appearance (demonstrated by Hogan 2003), its transhistorical nature (Rose 2001), and (where conditions permit) the continuity of literary experience from infancy to adulthood (Dissanayake & Miall 2003).I suggest that the foundations of literary experience are developed in two primary realms: response to literary language (characterized as foregrounding, Miall & Kuiken 1994), and the emotions that shape narrative understanding (Miall 2011), which appear in the form of empathy and absorption.In support of these views I consider empirical evidence, both experimental work conducted with literary readers, and neuropsychological evidence, such as evoked response potentials (ERPs), that provide support for the distinctiveness of literary processing.Evidence will be drawn from three specific areas that evoke experiences of literariness: the unreliable narrator, the ambiguity of literary language, and the hypothesis (still speculative) that humans are richly endowed with mirror neurons.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".