MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385451478 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1197346

The roots of metaphor: the essence of thought

2023· article· en· W4385451478 on OpenAlexaff
Herbert L. Colston

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionMetaphorCategorizationCognitionCompromisePsychologyCognitive scienceMeaning (existential)Cognitive psychologyEpistemologyConceptual metaphorDual (grammatical number)SociologyLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The essence of metaphor's reliance on two domains, a source and a target, is argued as stemming from a fundamental characteristic of higher cognition-that of conceptualizing more than one cognitive/embodied domain at the same time. This cognitive duality is argued to underlie a plethora of conceptual activities including comparison, contrast, categorization, as well as metaphorizing. Why "two" domains seems the emergent and optimal means of such meta-cognition, rather than a higher number of domains, which might confer some advantages, is argued to arise from a grand compromise between an extreme necessity of humans to create and rely-upon shared complex meanings, and the complexities in enabling such shared meaning across multiple domains.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207