MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1569862128 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n16p160

A Traveler in God’s Path: Sufi Words and the Metaphor of Journey

2015· article· en· W1569862128 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sareh Jaberi, Imran Ho Abdullah, Ravichandran Vengadasamy

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMysticismMetaphorRelation (database)CategorizationPhilosophyEpistemologyInterpretation (philosophy)PersianLiteratureLinguisticsPsychologyTheologyArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sufi language is a notable style of writing in Persian which is full of novel spiritual ideas and metaphors. One of the widely-used metaphors in Persian Sufis literature is MYSTICAL JOURNEY and its related components such as the traveler in God’s path and the notion of God’s way. This study is dedicated to analyse the Sufi terminologies in which mysticism has been conceptualized as a JOURNEY metaphor by utilizing a Lakoffian cognitive approach for studying structural metaphors in language. Investigating the MYSTICAL JOURNEY in Sufi language clarifies that the cognitive approach toward metaphors explains the relation between MYSTICISM and the JOURNEY metaphor. The present research attempts to categorize the levels of mapping between the two domains inherent in the JOURNEY metaphor. The paper concludes that there is a rich relation between the two domains in MYSTICISM IS JOURNEY metaphor and by defining the levels of mapping between these two domains, a clearer viewpoint toward mystical metaphors will be achieved.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207