MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Proverbs Reveal Culture Diversity

2013· article· en· W1943391841 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rong Hou

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity (politics)Meaning (existential)Perspective (graphical)Context (archaeology)Competition (biology)SociologyDimension (graph theory)Vernacular cultureSilenceValue (mathematics)Power (physics)Hofstede's cultural dimensions theoryEpistemologySocial scienceAestheticsHistoryAnthropologyArtEcologyComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through the analysis of property of culture and proverb, it can be known that proverb can help one to understand a culture. The way proverb reveals culture diversity can be connected with the patterns of value dimension, which conveys the information of a culture’s deep meaning. From the perspective of uncertainty-avoidance, it can be seen that although Ireland and America both are low-uncertainty-avoidance cultures, they mainly have different life attitudes, because that Americans put more emphasis on competition. From the perspective of high-context and low-context, the text provides the concepts of non-verbal communication and two layers of meaning of silence. And under this background, the paper analyzes several culture patterns, especially America and Japan. From the perspective of power-distance, it reveals the different views on equality between Arab and America, and analyzes the reasons of culture tradition. However, although culture diversity mainly reveals the culture difference, there are common aspects between cultures.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.022
Scholarly communication0.0070.017
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207