MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602454681 · doi:10.1525/rh.2017.35.1.75

A Figurative Mind: Gertrude Buck's The Metaphor as a Nexus in Cognitive Metaphor Theory

2017· article· de· W2602454681 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley Rose Mehlenbacher, Randy Allen Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueRhetorica · 2017
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorPhilosophyLiteral and figurative languageHumanitiesRhetoricArt historyCharacter (mathematics)ArtTheologyLinguisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gertrude Bucks (1899) The Metaphor: A Study in the Psychology of Rhetoric (Die Metapher: Eine Studie in der Psychologie der Rhetorik) ist ein einzigartiges Essay. In vielerlei Hinsicht prognostiziert das Essay die Metaphern des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts in der Rhetorik, der Linguistik und den Kognitionswissenschaften, inklusive Richards (1936) gefeierten Bemerkungen über die mentale Grundlagen von Metapher, sowie der einflussreichen “konzeptuellen Metapher” in Lakoff und Johnson (1980). Bucks Essay spiegelt auch die Themen der Metaphern welche die Deutsch und Französisch lexikalische Semantik des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts faszinierten. Die Metapher ist zwar ein Original, aber eine dennoch vernachlässigt Verbindung der rhetorischen Tradition, der linguistischen Wende und der Kognitionswissenschaft. Wir kartographieren die Konturen dieses Zusammenhangs, und explizieren, wie Bucks Argumente in die Geschichte der kognitiven Metapherstudien hineinpassen, mit einem Augenmerk sowohl auf Müllers Philologie des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts als auch bezüglich Lakoff und Johnsons Linguistik zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.026
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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