Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is aimed at testing the contemporary theory of conceptual metaphor and the Embodiment Hypothesis in an empirical study. The Embodiment Hypothesis has been verified in a paper on CHOU in Chinese classical ci-poetry. This paper adopts a different way of data collection.By asking native speakers of Chinese and English native speakers to write about the emotions of CHOU in Chinese and SADNESS in English, the author wants to find out whether there exist metaphorical patterns in these writings, and, if any, whether these metaphors are experientially based; moreover, the paper attempts to investigate the similarities and differences of CHOU in Chinese and SADNESS in English in these writings in terms of metaphorical patterns and their experiential bases. Key words: CHOU/SADNESS, emotion metaphors, the contemporary metaphor theory, the Embodiment Hypothesis Resume: Le present article vise a tester la theorie contemporaine de la metaphore conceptuelle et de l’hypothese de personnification dans une etude empirique. L’hypothese de personnification a ete verifiee dans un article sur Chou dans la poesie-Ci classique chinoise. Le present article adopte une facon differente de collection des donnees. En demandant aux Chinois natifs et Anglais natifs d’exprimer l’emotion de Chou en chinois et de tristesse en anglais, l’auteur voudrait trouver s’il existe des modeles metaphoriques dans ces ecrits, et si ces metaphores sont basees sur l’experience ; d’ailleurs, l’article cherche a etudier les similitudes et les differences entre Chou en chinois et la tristesse en anglais dans ces ecrits sur le plan des modeles metaphoriques et de leurs bases empiriques. Mots-Cles: Chou/tristesse, metaphores d’emotion, theorie de metaphore contemporaine hypothese de personnification 摘 要：本文的目標是在一次實證研究裏檢驗當代概念隱喻理論和“體驗性假說”. “體驗性假說”已經在一篇關於中國經典詩詞的文章中得到驗證.本文採取了不同的方法收集資料.本文作者讓以漢語為母語的人和以英語為母語的人分別就中文中“愁”的感情和英文中“悲傷”的感情進行寫作,通過這種方法,本文作者想發現在這些文章中是否存在某些隱喻模式;如果有的話,這些模式是否有其體驗性基礎.再者,本文試圖找出,就隱喻模式和體驗性基礎而言,這些文章中出現的中文中的“愁”和英文中的“悲傷”有哪些異同. 關鍵詞：愁/悲傷；情感隱喻；當代概念隱喻理論；體驗性假說
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".