Telling „Nothing” about „Nobody”. The Specificity of Polish Therapeutic Narratives in the Last Years of the First Quarter of the 21st Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Text Telling „nothing” about „nobody”. The specifi city of Polish therapeutic narratives in the lastyears of the fi rst quarter of the 21st century presents on two prose examples (Hanka by MaciejJakubowiak and Magiczna rana by Dorota Masłowska) literary traces of two signifi cant processesrelated to the situation of political and economic transformation in Poland after 1989. The fi rstone was evidenced in specifi c stories about the social advancement of people from families withpeasant, less often proletarian, roots, in which the main character ultimately turned out to be thenarrator-sender of the text. The second one focused attention on the losers of the transformation,weak entities that were pushed to the margins of reality in the dynamics of change. The authorof the text puts forward the thesis that stories about this topic can be emotionally costly. Consciouslyor unintentionally, they trigger, among other things, also ugly feelings (Sianne Ngai’s term) – suchas jealousy, irritation, cynicism – and those who feel them may require therapy.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".