MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413746140 · doi:10.5539/ells.v15n3p31

A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of China’s National Image Publicity Film PRC from the Perspective of Visual Grammar

2025· article· en· W4413746140 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Y. P. Xu, Shuo Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Social Science Fund of China
KeywordsPublicityPerspective (graphical)ChinaGrammarPolitical scienceLinguisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study conducts a multimodal discourse analysis of the 2023 China national image publicity film PRC to explore how a country’s national narrative is projected to the world through visual semiotics. Guided by the principles of Visual Grammar, this study uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to investigate the distribution of the representational meaning, interpersonal meaning, and compositional meaning in the publicity film, exploring how these semiotic resources contribute to the construction of China’s national image and what distinctive national images are constructed through the integration. The study reveals that the 147-second publicity film PRC was narrated around four major themes—the modern China, the people’s China, the aesthetic China, and the united China. To convey these themes, the film frequently employs techniques such as “narrative representation”, “offer act”, “medium shots” and “center-margin composition”. Visual and verbal resources complement and cooperate with each other in the publicity film to construct a multifaceted national image that is both cognitively engaging and emotionally resonant. This study offers a comprehensive perspective on the construction of China’s image from visual modality, providing valuable insights for designing and understanding similar works.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207