Document Open Access Logo

What Makes Stories Similar? Report on a Research Project, 2011-2014 (Invited Report)

Authors Bernhard Fisseni, Benedikt Löwe



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

OASIcs.CMN.2014.9.pdf
  • Filesize: 342 kB
  • 4 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Bernhard Fisseni
Benedikt Löwe

Cite AsGet BibTex

Bernhard Fisseni and Benedikt Löwe. What Makes Stories Similar? Report on a Research Project, 2011-2014 (Invited Report). In 2014 Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative. Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 41, pp. 9-12, Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2014)
https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.CMN.2014.9

Abstract

We present a survey of the results and findings of the research project "What makes stories similar?" funded by the John Templeton Foundation from October 2011 to May 2014.
Keywords
  • narratives
  • similarity
  • empirical studies

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Paul Bartha. Analogy and analogical reasoning. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2013 edition, 2013. Google Scholar
  2. Rens Bod, Bernhard Fisseni, Aadil Kurji, and Benedikt Löwe. Objectivity and reproducibility of Proppian narrative annotations. In Finlayson [3], pages 17-21. Google Scholar
  3. Mark A. Finlayson, editor. The Third Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative, İstanbul, 2012. Google Scholar
  4. Mark A. Finlayson, Bernhard Fisseni, Benedikt Löwe, and Jan Christoph Meister, editors. 2013 Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative, volume 32 of OpenAccess Series in Informatics (OASIcs). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2013. Google Scholar
  5. Bernhard Fisseni, Aadil Kurji, and Benedikt Löwe. Annotating with Propp’s Morphology of the Folktale: Reproducibility and trainability, submitted. Google Scholar
  6. Bernhard Fisseni, Aadil Kurji, Deniz Sarikaya, and Mira Viehstädt. Story comparisons: Evidence from film reviews. In Finlayson et al. [4], pages 94-99. Google Scholar
  7. Bernhard Fisseni and Faith Lawrence. A paradigm for eliciting story variation. In Finlayson et al. [4], pages 100-105. Google Scholar
  8. Bernhard Fisseni and Benedikt Löwe. Which dimensions of narratives are relevant for human judgments of story equivalence? In Finlayson [3], pages 114-118. Google Scholar
  9. Bernhard Fisseni and Benedikt Löwe. Event-mappings for comparing frameworks for narratives. Logique et Analyse, to appear. Google Scholar
  10. Wendy G. Lehnert. Plot units and narrative summarization. Cognitive Science, 5(4):293-331, 1981. Google Scholar
  11. Benedikt Löwe. Comparing formal frameworks of narrative structures. In Mark Finlayson, editor, Computational models of narrative. Papers from the 2010 AAAI Fall Symposium, volume FS-10-04 of AAAI Technical Reports, pages 45-46, 2010. Google Scholar
  12. Benedikt Löwe. Methodological remarks about comparing formal frameworks for narratives. In Patrick Allo and Giuseppe Primiero, editors, Third Workshop in the Philosophy of Information, Contactforum van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten, pages 10-28, Brussel, 2011. KVAB. Google Scholar
  13. Benedikt Löwe and Eric Pacuit. An abstract approach to reasoning about games with mistaken and changing beliefs. Australasian Journal of Logic, 6:162-181, 2008. Google Scholar
  14. Benedikt Löwe, Eric Pacuit, and Sanchit Saraf. Identifying the structure of a narrative via an agent-based logic of preferences and beliefs: Formalizations of episodes from CSI: Crime Scene Investigationtrademark. In Michael Duvigneau and Daniel Moldt, editors, Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Modelling of Objects, Components and Agents. MOCA'09, FBI-HH-B-290/09, pages 45-63, 2009. Google Scholar
  15. Harold Noonan. Identity. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2011 edition, 2011. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail