MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008495080 · doi:10.1080/02687038.2010.536842

Intersections of literal and metaphorical voices in aphasia

2011· article· en· W2008495080 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Purves, Heidi Logan, Skip Marcella

Bibliographic record

VenueAphasiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsVancouver Biotech (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAphasiaLiteral (mathematical logic)PsychologyIdentity (music)Set (abstract data type)LinguisticsLiteral and figurative languageCognitive psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: “Voice” in the aphasia literature has come to include metaphorical meanings associated with social identity and inclusion. Concepts of metaphorical voice acknowledge communication as a primarily social act through which we construct our identities, prompting attention to how social practices can impact those identities, either supporting or silencing metaphorical voice. The impact of aphasia on literal voice, (i.e., the physical production of spoken language) is also acknowledged in the research literature, but the intersections of metaphorical and literal voice in aphasia have rarely been explicitly addressed. Aims: The aim of this paper is to foreground these intersections through a case study involving a novel application of the software program SentenceShaper®, which can be used to facilitate construction of messages recorded in one's own voice. Methods & Procedures: This qualitative case study describes a project involving a man with nonfluent aphasia and apraxia who worked with a graduate student clinician over several months using SentenceShaper® to record a specific text for a specific purpose. Interpretative description is used to analyse the process and product of their interactions, set within the philosophical framework of a social intervention model. Data sources include the recording itself, field notes, and written reflections on interaction. Outcomes & Results: Findings show how literal voice is linked to identity, creating an authentic link between person and message. They also highlight ways in which a social approach to therapeutic interaction can support both literal and metaphorical voice. Finally, they illustrate the creativity with which a person with aphasia integrates components of a therapeutic process into a repertoire of tools to support communication. Conclusions: Literal and metaphorical voice are inextricably linked. Considering voice in both senses has the potential for identifying goals that might otherwise be overlooked.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.026
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAphasiologySame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207