MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095936404 · doi:10.7202/004292ar

Metaphor in Scientific Communication

2002· article· en· W2095936404 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anuška Štambuk

Bibliographic record

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorAffect (linguistics)Conceptual metaphorProcess (computing)Cognitive scienceScientific communicationEpistemologyPsychologyComputer scienceSociologyCommunicationLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When communicating new knowledge we often use metaphors that provide understanding of one kind of experience by relating it to another. Apart from their use in basic linguistic communication, metaphorical models play an important part in communicating new discoveries in scientific theories. They also shape our experience and affect our picture of the world. The imaginative description of conceptual relations stimulates the research process, providing the basis for new discoveries.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.026
Scholarly communication0.0100.016
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations23
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeta Journal des traducteursSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207