首次将叙事熵公式应用于真实文本，发现独白比群戏更费脑力。
Operationalizing Narrative Entropy (Sn): A Two-Scene Registered Pilot Report and Pre-Validation Protocol
- 用公式 $S_n = I_f \times C_b \times t$ 手动计算两段文本的叙事熵
- 单人独白叙事熵为30.0，九人对话仅为18.8，反直觉但未修正公式
- 预注册后续验证方案，强调方法本身不依赖作者直觉
叙事熵（$S_n$）是布鲁特学说中提出的量化描述符，旨在衡量叙事文本对读者认知负荷的施加速率。迄今该概念仅停留在理论层面，尚未在真实文本上实现操作化。本报告记录了首个操作化尝试（v2.0版）：由单一评估者手动编码并评分两个叙事场景——昆汀《低俗小说》开场餐厅戏与卡弗《大教堂》的独白段落，采用候选公式 $S_n = I_f \times C_b \times t$。结果与作者的朴素直觉相悖：单人独白（$S_n = 30.0$）得分高于九人对话（$S_n = 18.8$）。本文不试图解释该差异，而是将其视为核心发现，并拒绝事后调整公式。提出三种可能解释——公式不完整、高负荷散文的真正表现、测量误差，并预先注册了可区分这些解释的设计。v2.1版新增：（i）承认该差异与既有架构一致，即更重视推断重构而非表面陈述；所谓“违背预期”实为作者预判，非方法自身预测。（ii）预注册针对 $I_f$ 的构念效度检验，源于观察到两场景 $I_f$ 值接近（1.71 vs 1.58），却导致显著 $S_n$ 差异。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Narrative Entropy ($S_n$) is a proposed quantitative descriptor within the Bulut Doctrine, intended to capture the rate at which a narrative text imposes processing load on a reader. To date the construct has been defined theoretically but not operationalized against real texts. This report documents the first such operationalization (the v2.0 pilot): two narrative scenes -- the opening restaurant scene of Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs and the opening interior-monologue block of Carver's Cathedral -- were coded manually by a single rater and scored with the candidate formula $S_n = I_f \times C_b \times t$. The result was a divergence from the author's naive intuition: the single-voice monologue ($S_n = 30.0$) scored higher than the nine-character dialogue scene ($S_n = 18.8$). We treat this not as a result to be explained away but as the central finding, and we refuse post-hoc adjustment of the formula. Three competing interpretations are presented -- formula incompleteness, genuine high-load prose, and measurement error -- and the design that would discriminate among them is pre-registered. This v2.1 revision adds: (i) explicit acknowledgement that the divergence is consistent with the pre-existing architectural framework which privileges inferential reconstruction over surface declaration, and that what was called "contrary to expectation" in v2.0 reflected the author's anticipatory intuition rather than the methodology's own predictions; (ii) a pre-registered construct validity test for $I_f$, motivated by the observation that $I_f$ values were nearly equal across the two scenes (1.71 vs 1.58) despite the headline $S_n$ divergence. The document functions simultaneously as a pilot report ($n=2$) and as a pre-registration of the next-stage protocol. It does not claim that $S_n$ has been validated.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。