MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320440341 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v6n2p92

Rethinking Critical Metaphor Analysis

2016· article· en· W2320440341 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Li Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesSouthwest University
KeywordsCovertMetaphorCognitive linguisticsCritical discourse analysisPragmaticsLinguisticsConceptual metaphorCognitionPsychologySociologyPhilosophyPolitical sciencePoliticsIdeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical Metaphor Analysis is concerned with integrating critical discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, pragmatics and cognitive linguistics to explore implicit speaker intentions and covert power relations through the analysis of metaphoric expressions. CMA has been a meaningful enrichment of both Critical Discourse Analysis and Conceptual Metaphor Theory. This paper aims to give an overview of the formation of CMA, the research findings, the existing problems and the possible solutions.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.047
Scholarly communication0.0160.036
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0040.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207