MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

METAPHORICAL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF TRAVEL NARRATIVE IN KULYK KEEFER’S MEMOIR HONEY AND ASHES

2025· article· W7093299104 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueWritings in Romance-Germanic Philology · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTravel Writing and Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationMetaphorNarrativeMemoirConceptual metaphorConstruct (python library)Conceptual systemIdentity (music)Tourism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the metaphorical conceptualization of travel narratives in Janice Kulyk Keefer’s memoir Honey and Ashes, employing cognitive-linguistic tools to analyze how the author’s physical journey mirrors an interior exploration of identity, belonging, and heritage. It applies the framework of Lakoff and Johnson’s conceptual metaphor theory and conceptual integration (or blending) theory (as developed by Fauconnier and Turner) to the analysis of the interplay between the source domain of travel and the target domain of narrative. The analysis reveals that Keefer’s journey—spanning from Canada to her ancestral village in Ukraine—serves as a metaphorical bridge between past and present, with the memoir’s structure reflecting the cognitive processes of memory and self-discovery. Key conceptual mappings include the traveler as narrator, the road map as stories, and destinations as chapters, illustrating how the metaphor “NARRATIVE IS TRAVEL” shapes the text’s meaning. The study highlights Keefer’s dual role as both observer and subject, as she grapples with questions of cultural identity and belonging. Through contextual and interpretative analysis, the article demonstrates how metaphorical expressions in the memoir activate deeper cognitive structures, enabling readers to construct coherent mental models of the narrative.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWritings in Romance-Germanic PhilologySame topicTravel Writing and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207