MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1527475309

Language, Culture and Communication: The Ibibio Worldview

2012· article· en· W1527475309 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bassey Andian Okon, Stella A. Ansa

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyIdeologyFocus (optics)Gender studiesEpistemologyAnthropologyLinguisticsSocial psychologyPsychologyPoliticsLawPhilosophyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Language, culture and communication are complementary elements/features in all societies. The Ibibio society which is the focus of this article describes the people as well as the language. The Ibibios are found in the south-south geopolitical zone of Nigeria. They number about four million people and speak the language-Ibibio-which belongs to the Lower Cross languages, a sub-family of the Benue Congo Phylum. The Ibibio worldview highlights the beliefs, the ideologies, values and the thought-pattern of the people. Using the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis with some modifications, we have shown that the worldview of a people is not determined only by the structure of a language. In addition, especially for the African (Ibibio) society, the worldview extends beyond the members of the society at that point in time but to those who are dead and the unborn. The data for this work were elicited through oral interview and participant observation using Ibibio proverbs among othersin order to posit answers to the objectives stated in this article.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207