References
- 1Andresen, M., Krautter, B., Pagel, J., & Reiter, N. (2021). Wissensvermittlungen im Drama annotieren. Annotationsguideline. Zenodo. (Version Number: 1.0) DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5729706
- 2Andresen, M., Krautter, B., Pagel, J., & Reiter, N. (2022a). Nathan nicht ihr Vater? – Wissensvermittlungen im Drama annotieren. In Book of Abstracts of DHd 2022. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6327912
- 3Andresen, M., Krautter, B., Pagel, J., & Reiter, N. (2022b). Who knows what in German drama? A composite annotation scheme for knowledge transfer. Journal of Computational Literary Studies, 1(1). DOI: 10.48694/jcls.107
- 4Andresen, M., Vauth, M., & Zinsmeister, H. (2020). Modeling Ambiguity with Many Annotators and Self-Assessments. In Proceedings of the 14th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (pp. 48–59). Retrieved 12 December 2023, from
https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.law-1.5/ - 5Anz, T. (1998). Literatur und Lust. Glück und Unglück beim Lesen. München: C.H. Beck.
- 6Aristotle. (1995).
Poetics . In S. Halliwell (Ed.), Aristotle: Poetics (pp. 27–141). Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. DOI: 10.4159/DLCL.aristotle-poetics.1995 - 7Cave, T. (1988). Recognitions. A study in poetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- 8Evans, B. (1960). Shakespeare’s comedies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- 9Fischer, F., Börner, I., Göbel, M., Hechtl, A., Kittel, C., Milling, C., & Trilcke, P. (2019). Programmable Corpora – Die digitale Literaturwissenschaft zwischen Forschung und Infrastruktur am Beispiel von DraCor. In DHd 2019 Digital Humanities: multimedial & multimodal. Book of Abstracts (pp. 194–197). DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2596095
- 10Fischer, F., Trilcke, P., Kittel, C., Milling, C., & Skorinkin, D. (2018). To catch a protagonist: Quantitative dominance relations in German-language drama (1730–1930). In Book of Abstracts of DH 2018 (pp. 193–201). Retrieved 12 December 2023, from
https://dh2018.adho.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/dh2018_abstracts.pdf#page=193 - 11Gius, E., & Jacke, J. (2017). The Hermeneutic Profit of Annotation. On Preventing and Fostering Disagreement in Literary Text Analysis. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 11(2), 233–254. DOI: 10.3366/ijhac.2017.0194
- 12Gutjahr, O. (2012).
Komödie des (Ge)Wissens: Heinrich von Kleists ‘Der zerbrochne Krug’ . In Y. Lü, A. Stephens, A. Lewis, & W. Voßkamp (Eds.), Wissensfiguren im Werk Heinrich von Kleists (pp. 23–39). Rombach Verlag. - 13Horstmann, J. (2018). Theaternarratologie. Ein erzähltheoretisches Analyseverfahren für Theaterinszenierungen. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110597868
- 14Iyyer, M., Guha, A., Chaturvedi, S., Boyd-Graber, J., & Daumé, H.,
III. (2016). Feuding Families and Former Friends: Unsupervised Learning for Dynamic Fictional Relationships. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (pp. 1534–1544). DOI: 10.18653/v1/N16-1180 - 15Kiss, O. (2010). Reinventing the Plot: J. C. Gottsched’s ‘Sterbender Cato’. Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, 84(4), 507–525. DOI: 10.1007/BF03375820
- 16Krautter, B. (2023). Kopräsenz-, Koreferenz- und Wissens-Netzwerke. Kantenkriterien in dramatischen Figurennetzwerken am Beispiel von Kleists ‘Die Familie Schroffenstein’ (1803). Journal of Literary Theory, 17(2), 261–289. DOI: 10.1515/jlt-2023-2012
- 17Krautter, B., & Vauth, M. (2023).
Konstellationen kommunikativer Macht. Hypothesengeleitete Netzwerkanalyse in der Literaturwissenschaft . In H. Schwab (Ed.), Figurenkonstellation und Gesellschaftsentwurf: Annäherungen an eine narratologische Kategorie und ihre Deutungspotentiale (pp. 205–238). Universitätsverlag Winter. - 18Lee, J., & Lee, J. (2017). Shakespeare’s tragic social network; or why all the world’s a stage. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 11(2). Retrieved 12 December 2023, from
http://digitalhumanities.org:8081/dhq/vol/11/2/000289/000289.html - 19Liu, P., Yuan, W., Fu, J., Jiang, Z., Hayashi, H., & Neubig, G. (2023). Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9), 195:1–195:35. DOI: 10.1145/3560815
- 20Massey, P., Xia, P., Bamman, D., & Smith, N. A. (2015). Annotating Character Relationships in Literary Texts. arXiv. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1512.00728
- 21Mathet, Y., Widlöcher, A., & Métivier, J.-P. (2015). The unified and holistic method gamma (γ) for inter-annotator agreement measure and alignment. Computational Linguistics, 41(3), 437–479. DOI: 10.1162/COLI_a_00227
- 22Pfister, M. (1988). The theory and analysis of drama (J. Halliday, Trans.). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511553998
- 23Reiter, N. (2018). CorefAnnotator – a new annotation tool for entity references. In EADH 2018. Retrieved 12 December 2023, from
https://eadh2018.exordo.com/programme/presentation/118 - 24Trilcke, P. (2022).
Small Worlds, Beat Charts und die Netzwerkanalyse dramatischer Texte. Reflexionen aus dem Rabbit Hole . In F. Jannidis (Ed.), Digitale Literaturwissenschaft: DFG-Symposion 2017 (pp. 563–596). J.B. Metzler. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-476-05886-7_23 - 25Ziems, C., Held, W., Shaikh, O., Chen, J., Zhang, Z., & Yang, D. (2023). Can large language models transform computational social science? Computational Linguistics, 49(4), 1–53. DOI: 10.1162/coli_a_00502