MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414238947 · doi:10.5430/elr.v14n2p31

A Study on Conceptual Metaphors in the Commentary of the English Promotional Film Encountering Love At West Lake from an Intercultural Perspective

2025· article· en· W4414238947 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xinyi Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSubtitles and Audiovisual Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorHarmony (color)Perspective (graphical)Intercultural communicationConceptual metaphorContext (archaeology)GermanPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of globalization, promotional films are a key tool for cultural diplomacy and soft power projection. This study examines how conceptual metaphors (CMs) in the English promotional film Encountering Love at West Lake facilitate the cross-cultural communication of Chinese cultural narratives. Grounded in Conceptual Metaphor Theory, this research employs textual analysis to identify and classify CMs (e.g., LOVE IS A JOURNEY, WEST LAKE IS A MIRROR) within the film’s commentary. It investigates how these metaphors encode traditional Chinese values such as harmony and perseverance, and how they function from an intercultural perspective to bridge—or occasionally complicate—cultural understanding. The findings reveal that CMs serve as effective cognitive bridges, enhancing emotional resonance and making abstract cultural concepts accessible to international audiences. The study concludes that the strategic use of metaphor is crucial for effective cultural promotion, offering practical implications for the translation and localization of cultural content and contributing to methodologies in intercultural discourse analysis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 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 Linguistics ResearchSame topicSubtitles and Audiovisual MediaFrench-language works237,207