The Embodiment of Power as Forward/Backward Movement in Chinese and English Speakers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In two experiments, we examined whether POWER is embodied in terms of horizontal forward and backward movement using an action compatibility task. Participants were asked to categorize power-related words (e.g., “boss”, “intern”) aseither “powerful” or “powerless” as quickly and accurately as possible. In the compatible condition, the response to indicate that the word was “powerful” involved a forward movement and the response to indicate “powerless” involved a backward movement. Under incompatible conditions, these responses were reversed (“powerful”-backward/“powerless”-forward). In both experiments, participants were faster to categorize the words when the response actions were compatible than incompatible. Furthermore, this compatibility effect was observed for both Chinese (Mandarin) speakers categorizing Chinese words and English speakers categorizing English words. These data suggest that the psychological reality of a “POWER IS MOVING FORWARD” conceptual metaphor in both language groups, which we argue is based on an extension of the “SOURCE-PATH-GOAL” schema.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it