MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284710415 · doi:10.1075/ftl.16.07col

Embodied simulations and verbal irony comprehension

2022· book-chapter· en· W4284710415 on OpenAlexaff
Herbert L. Colston, Michelle Sims, Maija Pumphrey, Eleanor D. Kinney, Xina Evangelista, Nathan Vandermolen-Pater, Graham Tomkins Feeny

Bibliographic record

VenueFigurative thought and language · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIronyEmbodied cognitionSarcasmMetaphorComprehensionLiteral and figurative languageLinguisticsPsychologyCognitive scienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent research has addressed the role that embodied simulations (ESs) play in language processing ( Bergen, 2012 ). One forefront in this work is investigating ESs’ role in metaphorical language comprehension, as when one hears or reads: “The Donald Trump supporter went bananas after the 2016 U.S. election”. The work reveals that the pattern of ESs found in metaphor processing resembles that of comparable non-metaphorical language – but isn’t exactly the same. Current work is attempting to discern how similar/different these ES patterns are. To date, however, little work has explored embodied simulations in verbal irony (e.g., sarcasm, as in saying, “Nice work” when someone errs). The current study reports preliminary results of an analysis of ES activity when people process verbal irony.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigurative thought and languageSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207