I am reading a book "The concepts and practice of mathematical finance" by Mark Joshi. In Chapter 18 he discusses the shapes and dynamics of smiles under different models. I do not understand what is meant by "smile implied by a model".
As I understand it, given a vanilla option with a fixed maturity $T$ and strike $K$, implied volatility is defined as the value of the parameter $\sigma$ we need to input into the Black-Scholes formula in order to get the price observed in the market. Repeating this for different strikes, we obtain the smile as a function of $K$.
Correct me if I am wrong, but implied volatilities are always meant to be as above and relate to the Black-Scholes model. In this case, can anyone please give me a definition of "smile implied by a model" for a more general model?
For example, Joshi discusses the smiles of the stochastic volatility model:
$$\frac{dS}{S} = \mu dt + V^{1/2} dW^{(1)},$$ $$ dV = \lambda (V_r - V) dt + \sigma_V V^\alpha dW^{(2)}.$$
What totally confuses me is when he talks about the smile implied by this model. We are allowed to calibrate any of $\alpha$, $\lambda$, $V_r$ and $\sigma_V$ so that the model matches market prices, but volatility of the stock is a stochastic process so there is no way we can introduce "implied volatility".
I have a similar confusion in the case of jump-diffusions or variance gamma. There could be even more parameters and the solution set that gives the market price would be multidimensional. Let alone the fact that volatility of the stock may not be a parameter.
Thank you for your help.