MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187261828 · doi:10.3968/12145

Beyond Visual Metaphor: A Cognitive Interaction between Metaphor and Metonymy in Filming Visual Rhetorical Image of the Statue of Liberty

2021· article· en· W3187261828 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Min Lei

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetonymyMetaphorVisual rhetoricConceptual metaphorRhetorical questionPsychologyAnalogyRhetoricMental imageCognitionCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It was the boom of image transmission that accelerates a series of emerging interdisciplinary researches on visual rhetoric. The aim of this study is to investigate a cognitive function model of how metaphtonymy interaction takes place with cross-interaction of meaning operation and visual structure along with progressive imagery and values transfer both in source domain and target domain of visual metaphor. It results in two important findings: one comes from the exemplification of Top Ten Film Appearances of the Statue of Liberty where an active interaction might often operates between visual metaphor and metonymy either in metaphorical source domain or target domain or even in the both, during which four types of visual rhetorical figures, mainly represented by visual connection-related juxtaposition, visual opposition-related juxtaposition, visual connection-related fusion, visual connection-related replacement, more possibly interprets three steps of the target imagery transfer from archetypal imagery to conceptual image and last to symbolic imagery of the Statue of Liberty. It also unveils two levels of values shift from heuristic one to terminal one. The other finding attributes to a cognitive function model of interaction between metaphor and metonymy based on Liu’s model (2018) and a typology of visual rhetoric showing classification of ad examples (Phillips and McQuarrie, 2004) together with Liu’s (2011) three types of imagery transfer and Rokeach Values Scale. The first finding initially connects visual production to psychological cognition of imagery and values transfer. It paves a way to explore visual metaphor from a psychological cognitive point of view beyond advertising. The latter one, following Liu (2018), systematically rebuilds and exemplifies a cognitive model of metaphtonymy interaction, which can not only provide a significant guidance for audience to do critical thinking and rational judgment when consuming visual metaphors, but also contribute to visual products’ good quality and GAPP’ s effective supervision of visual products circulation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207