MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603226996 · doi:10.3138/mous.14.1-03

Aristotle’s Theory of Metaphor Revisited

2017· article· en· W2603226996 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthew Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of Canada · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorRhetoricPoeticsSimilarity (geometry)Representation (politics)Statement (logic)Point (geometry)Field (mathematics)EpistemologyLinguisticsCurrencyPhilosophyLiteratureComputer sciencePoetryMathematicsPoliticsArtArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper challenges a popular representation of Aristotle’s views regarding metaphor that has gained currency in recent publications by several figures working in the field of cognitive linguistics. It begins by presenting the five points to which they have reduced Aristotle’s position, and then proceeds to consider each point and determine to what extent it accurately reflects the views Aristotle outlines in the Poetics, Rhetoric, and other texts. Its basic contention is that out of the five points they attribute to Aristotle, only one has firm textual support: this is the notion that metaphors involve a statement of similarity.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of CanadaSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207