Beyond Predator and Prey: Figuring Corruption through Animal Metaphoric Scenarios in the Jordanian Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combining a cognitive approach based on Lakoff’s Conceptual Metaphor Theory and a pragmatic approach based on Critical Metaphor Analysis, this study investigates the use of ANIMAL metaphoric scenarios to figure corruption as a relationship between predators and prey and the cultural implications in the Jordanian context. It also seeks to identify the diverse functions performed by the use of ANIMAL metaphors. Data for the study consist of 10 excerpts taken from a satire-genre discourse “sawalief.com”. My argument is that all animal metaphors in the corpus promote the contrast between the ACTIVITY of corrupters and the PASSIVITY of the citizenry and that the goal of this rhetoric is to move the PASSIVE citizenry into ACTION by shaming them into fighting corruption. This is clearly illustrated through the use of two types of ANIMAL metaphoric scenarios: ACTIVE ANIMALS representing corrupters and politicians, and PASSIVE ANIMALS representing the citizens. In addition, the use of these metaphors performs diverse functions: ideological, cognitive, and rhetorical.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".