MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995549104 · doi:10.1177/0261927x19894032

Grasping for Metaphors: Identity Ambiguity Contributes to the Preference for Metaphor Usage

2019· article· en· W2995549104 on OpenAlexaff
Michael N. Bultmann, Nathan Wheeler, Tyler Jimenez, Jamie Arndt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Language and Social Psychology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYMetaphorAmbiguityPreferencePsychologyIdentity (music)Social psychologyPower (physics)Cognitive psychologyLinguisticsAestheticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metaphors are frequently used linguistic devices that have the power to clarify ambiguous topics. In turn, a clear and stable self-concept is important to psychological functioning. The current article examines the potential role of self-concept clarity in understanding metaphor usage. Study 1 found that self-concept clarity negatively predicts metaphor usage. Study 2 found that experimentally lowering self-concept clarity led to more metaphor usage in general, and that self-reported self-concept clarity was implicated as a potential mediating factor. Implications are discussed.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Language and Social PsychologySame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207