MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811388457 · doi:10.6035/monti.2018.10.9

Conceptualisation indices in health and life sciences translation: An experientialist approach

2018· article· en· W2811388457 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvie Vandaele

Bibliographic record

VenueMonTi Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationPredicative expressionConceptual metaphorMetaphorBiomedicineSet (abstract data type)EpistemologyLinguisticsCognitive sciencePsychologyComputer scienceSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conceptual metaphors, as theorized by George Lakoff, are essential to scientific and biomedical thought. They express themselves in speech through metaphorical expressions. Understanding conceptual metaphors is critical for translators. Several years ago we proposed the concept of conceptualization index, which is the linguistic element by which metaphor operates. This article begins with a description of the experiential framework used for a number of studies realized in biomedicine and life sciences. Then, the predicative, quasi-predictive, and non-predictive conceptualization indices are distinguished. Finally, the general principles deduced from the set of data are presented.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonTi Monografías de Traducción e InterpretaciónSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207