Poetry comprehension: a description of the cognitive and emotional processing of literary experts and novices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To describe the cognitive and emotional processes involved in poetry comprehension in novice and expert readers, responses to emotional and intellectual poems were collected from 24 English literature students (12 undergraduate, 12 graduate) and were qualitatively analyzed. Participants read two poems, circling and underlining those areas which stimulated thoughts and feelings, respectively. They then discussed their poetic understanding by explaining those marks. Two questionnaires were administered to determine (a) what readers know about poetry comprehension, and (b) what readers know of their cognitive and emotional responses to each poem. Factors for each data set were derived and were used to indicate underlying meaning-making representations. The factors illustrate that experts have a concept of interpretation (Olson, 1994) so are able to consider the process as well as the products of reading. Novices, in comparison, tend to consider only the products. Practicing an aesthetic stance (Rosenblatt, 1978, 1995) within the context of a reader-centered classroom (Langer, 1993) may promote novices' acquisition of this concept.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".