The embodiment of power as upward/downward movement in Chinese-English bilinguals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using an action compatibility task, we investigated whether POWER is embodied in terms of upward and downward movement in two languages (first and dominant language: Chinese; second language: English). Chinese-English bilinguals were asked to quickly and accurately categorize power-related words (e.g., “boss,” “intern”) as “powerful” or “powerless.” The response to indicate that the word was “powerful” required an upward movement in the compatible condition, while the response to indicate “powerless” involved a downward movement. These responses were reversed in the incompatible condition (“powerful”-downward/“powerless”-upward). When the response actions were compatible rather than incompatible, participants were faster to categorize the words. Furthermore, the action compatibility effect was observed in both languages, but surprisingly the action compatibility effect was larger in their L2. The findings support the psychological reality of the “POWER IS UP” conceptual metaphor that is active when participants process language in both their primary and secondary languages.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".