fpf.tools
Library / Narrativization and Narrative Studies Principles Framework
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 2801–2827

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 16:02:47 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 16:03:51 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 16:25:20 UTC

Source Use And Refresh Map

The sources below contribute to particular narrative operations. Older conceptual anchors remain useful within their scope; recent studies and systems add bounded results. The extension across factual, mathematical, fictional and live accounts is this DPF’s synthesis. A citation does not establish every condition of that synthesis.

SourceContribution used hereScope and limit
Hoffmann, The Tensions of Scientific Storytelling, 2014NSTD.1/.3/.5: organize attempts, mechanisms and unresolved tensions for a reader.A conceptual discussion and examples, not evidence that a particular narrative or explanation is correct.
Schmid, Narratology: An Introduction, 2010NSTD.2/.4: distinguish selection, ordering, presentation and narrative perspective.A historical narratological account, not a universal ontology of all communication.
Chihaia, Introductions to Narratology, 2012NSTD.2/.4: interpret vocabulary and teaching choices within their tradition and audience.A survey of introductions; the DPF’s Core distinctions are a separate synthesis.
Nguyen, A Review of Mechanistic Models of Event Comprehension, 2024NSTD.3: inspect event boundaries, dependencies, updating and prediction when they affect comprehension.A review of models, not a guarantee of a particular reader’s reconstruction.
Chen and Xu, Narrative Perspective in Novel Reading, 2026NSTD.4: perspective and focalization can change reading responses.The experiment does not rank all viewpoints for all readers or uses.
Mengelkamp, Golke and Appel, Reading Goal Instructions, 2025NSTD.5/.6/.8: distinguish comprehension from confidence and consider the reading aim.Effects differed by condition; overestimation remained across conditions. A study goal alone does not establish learning.
Georgiou et al., Human Memory for Meaningful Narratives, 2025NSTD.5/.6/.8: distinguish gist, recall, recognition and reconstruction of order.Results for the studied narratives motivate a specific memory question, not every retention or transfer claim.
Castricato et al., Towards a Model-Theoretic View of Narratives, 2021; preprint title: Towards a Formal Model of NarrativesNSTD.1/.6: distinguish narrator-to-reader information, evolving reader models and uncertainty.A formal model of narrative communication; it does not define actual FPF Work, role assignments or the C.2.8 characteristic.
Green and Brock, Transportation and Persuasion, 2000NSTD.5: immersion can affect beliefs and evaluation of protagonists.Historical empirical anchor; immersion is not a measure of source fidelity.
Dahlstrom and Ho, Ethical Considerations of Narrative Science Communication, 2012NSTD.5: examine intended influence, accuracy and the choice to use a narrative.Science-policy communication is the source setting. Other uses require their own affected-party question.
Dunlosky et al., Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques, 2013; Rohrer and Taylor, The Shuffling of Mathematics Problems Improves Learning, 2007; Kang, Spaced Repetition Promotes Efficient and Effective Learning, 2016NSTD.8: historical anchors for retrieval practice, spacing and conditional interleaving.Select the move for the learner’s task and prerequisites; a reference topic map alone does not settle learning order. The later support studies are explained in NSTD.8:11.
Gatt and Krahmer, NLG survey, 2018; Alabdulkarim et al., Story-generation survey, 2021NSTD.2/.3/.7: distinguish content, order and realization; inspect their different failures.Historical foundations rather than a current ranking of tools.
Cardona Rivera et al., The Story So Far on Narrative Planning, 2024; Kumaran et al., SceneCraft, 2023NSTD.7: plans and author instructions can control narrative construction and interactive scenes.Planning and interactive-game results do not require every ordinary draft to have a separate plan artifact.
Ma et al., Text-to-Text Automatic Story Generation, 2026NSTD.6/.7: continuing problems with coherence, consistency, diversity, control and evaluation.A survey of 57 included papers; it does not validate this DPF’s scales.
Rahman et al., G-KMS, 2026NSTD.7: distinguish structured validation, semantic inspection and engine execution.Evaluated in a compact Unity RPG. Its engine admission is not universal narrative admission.
Nguyen-Trung and Nguyen, NITA, 2026NSTD.4/.7: compare LLM-proposed themes with excerpts and alternatives under researcher judgement.A qualitative-analysis method; its human interpretive role is not a universal requirement for generated prose.

Meretoja’s Narrative and Human Existence: Ontology, Epistemology, and Ethics remains philosophical background, not an independent warrant for the operations or scales above.

Return to the affected source when its claim is contradicted, overextended or no longer suitable for the intended use. Apply G.2/G.11 when the work is to synthesize or refresh the relevant SoTA traditions; ordinary comparison with a story’s canon or a lesson’s source remains direct.