Metaphoric Interpretations of Comparison-Based Combinations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Three experiments demonstrate that the interpretation of comparison-based combinations (e.g., "trumpet voice") is influenced by the same factors that influence the processing of metaphors (e.g., "Some voices are trumpets"). Specifically, aptness (the degree to which a statement expresses important features of the topic), expectancy (whether the meaning corresponds to a semantic dimension that is highly expected in the head noun, i.e., voice), and salience (whether the attributed property is frequently associated with the modifier, i.e., trumpet) affected comprehensibility ratings and comprehension times. Increased aptness led to greater ease in comprehending combined concepts. High salience aided comprehension regardless of level of expectancy. In contrast, high expectancy aided comprehension only when salience was high. The results support the Competition Among Relations In Nominals (CARIN) theory of conceptual combination (Gagné2000; Gagné Shoben, 1997).
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it