ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2025
Does literature evolve one funeral at a time?
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cultural evolution - of the arts.Evolutionary human sciences · 2026Article
- Does literature evolve one funeral at a time?Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The cultural evolution of literary fiction is rarely studied, but rich literary data can help address some of the general problems of cultural change. In this article, we use a massive dataset of Anglophone fiction (over 23 000 books) and the tools of natural language processing to understand whether the long-term change of topics in books is driven by the individual change of authors or by the cohort turnover in author populations. To answer this question, we borrow a method from evolutionary ecology: decomposition analysis based on the Price equation. To prove the suitability of this method, we first apply it to simulated data and show that it does allow distinguishing between these two processes. Afterwards, we decompose the temporal trajectories of topics and measure the relative effects of the arrival of newcomer authors (entrances), the retirement of authors (exits) and the change of topic preferences during authors' lifetimes (individual change). We find that cohort turnover is a stronger force than individual change. Within the cohort effects, the effect of entrances is almost twice as strong as the effect of exits. Using simulated data, we discover that this difference stems from the unequal lengths of authors' careers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.