Simile: cognitive and semiotic perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article reveals linguistic, cognitive and semiotic characteristics of simile in English poetic texts of Canadian poetry. Cognitive peculiarities of simile are defined via cognitive and semiotic operation of comparison and reconstruction of concepts and conceptual metaphors which underlie it, while semiotic peculiarities are clarified via identification of cultural codes and word-symbols which are represented in subjective and objective parts of similes. Thus, I view simile as a multifunctional linguistic and semiotic construal representing verbal patterns of form and semantic function. Linguistic and semiotic analysis of similes enables their classification into iconic, indexical and symbolic ones. The semiotic classification of similes is premised on the type of semiotic relation that exists between a “sign vehicle” and its meaning. Iconic similes are based on similarity between a sign and its referent, while indexical similes show relations of contiguity. Symbolic similes are differentiated on the basis of conventional pairing of a signified and a signifier within a simile.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".