Versatility in Cross-Cultural Variations of Personification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literature was first structured by great figures’ literary and non-literary works that gave birth to the metaphorical conceptualization. The personalities like Dante and Rumi who developed the first social-cultural universality by using personifications – though from two different parts of the world. The power of poetry which can be created in personification is one of the different ways to bring universality of the metaphorical expressions into literature. Although personification is the important part of metaphorical poetry, very few researchers analyzed it. To this end, inspired form Kovecses (2007) classification of metaphoric expressions, it was attempted to analyze Rumi’s Masnavi Ma?navi’s (Spiritual Couplets) first (4003 verses) and second books (3822 verses) in terms of personification along with Dante’s Devine comedy including Inferno and Paradise. Chi-square test was run to find the type, the frequency and significance of the personification’s application in these two poets’ works. Findings revealed significant differences namely, nature and animate personifications in these great works. Finally, it was revealed that poetry could manifest different socio-cultural and religious bonds between different societies. Key words: Personification; Conceptualization; Metaphorical expressions
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".