MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145726962 · doi:10.5539/res.v7n8p253

The Frame Structure of the Concept FAMILY in the Paroemiological View of the World of the Finnish Language

2015· article· en· W2145726962 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Svetlana L. Yakovleva, Marina A. Pershina, Tatiana A. Soldatkina, Ekaterina E. Fliginskikh

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPejorativeFrame (networking)AmbivalenceConsciousnessMeaning (existential)LinguisticsExpression (computer science)SociologyFrame of referencePsychologyEpistemologySocial psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents the frame structure of the concept Family in the Finnish paroemiological fund, describing three top levels: “Nuclear Family”, “Androcentric Family” and “Affinal Family” which include five terminals and four sub-slots. The Finnish mentality reflected in proverbs and sayings is characterized by three cognitive levels according to their inner form and meaning, plane of content and plane of expression. The results of the research suggest that in the analyzed fragment of the linguistic view of the world metaphorical paroemiae make up 51% (70 out of 137 units). In Finnish proverbs and sayings the leadership belongs to the man; fathers are responsible for the formation of national self-consciousness and women are home-keepers. Four types of metaphors are typical of the paroemiae: anthropomorphic, naturemorphic, sociomorphic and artefactual among which the last ones prevail. According to their axiological status the frames are divided into three groups: meliorative, pejorative and ambivalent.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207