MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335717768 · doi:10.2190/ic.31.1-2.j

The Depiction of Wheels by Blind Children: Preliminary Studies on Pictorial Metaphors, Language, and Embodied Imagery

2011· article· en· W2335717768 on OpenAlex
Maribel Tercedor Sánchez, Pamela Faber, Amedeo D’Angiulli

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueImagination Cognition and Personality · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionPsychologyIntrospectionPerceptionMental imageMetaphorSituatedPerspective (graphical)DepictionCognitive psychologyCommunicationLinguisticsCognitive scienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blind (and visually impaired) children make use of perceptual cues from multimodal sensory input of known objects when they draw. In this study, we examined drawings of spinning wheels made by 12-year-old congenitally blind children. The drawings can be analyzed in terms of metaphoric and metonymic mappings from perceptual cues of different objects. Just as metaphoric language is understood through embodiment, the drawings are made through embodiment or perceptual symbolic simulations that have their parallel in language. We considered the relation between metaphor in haptic drawings and language from the perspective of situated simulation in which imagery, motion, and introspection play a crucial role in the shaping of concepts. Reference corpora offer evidence of the verbal correlates of such simulations in English and Spanish.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.290 · 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