MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790637831 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v7n2p84

Metaphorical Perceptions of Folk Dances Trainers Regarding the Concept of Folk Dances

2018· article· en· W2790637831 on OpenAlex
Ebru Olcay Karabulut, Pınar Doğan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEducation Practices and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFolk danceMetaphorPerceptionHappinessContext (archaeology)PsychologySubject (documents)Qualitative researchSociologySocial psychologyVisual artsArtAnthropologyLinguisticsHistoryDanceComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research was carried out with the help of metaphor to determine the perception of folk dances trainers regarding the concept of folk dances. The study was carried out with a total of 141 folk dances trainers (85 men and 56 women), who depend on the Folk Dances Federation of Turkey.In the study, a semi-structured interview form was used to allow participants to freely express their opinions on the specific subject. In this context, each participant was asked to write a metaphor about the concept of folk dances and to explain it. To determine the metaphorical perceptions of the concept of ‘‘folk dances’‘ the trainers were asked to complete such clauses as “folk dances are like….” and “Because ...”.In this study, phenomenological design was used from qualitative research approaches. In the analysis of data, content analysis technique was used. Frequency and percent values were calculated. The opinions of an in-field expert and an out-of-field expert were consulted as a reliability procedure. As a result of the calculation, the reliability of the research was calculated as %98.5.According to the study findings, it is seen that the trainers expressed their opinions on 86 types of metaphors that are divided into 12 conceptual categories for the concept of “folk dances” and 141 views for this. The category in which maximum exists is metaphor of “Happiness, Excitement and Energy Aspect” and the most used the words were found to be “love” (f=8), “ambition” (f=5), “life” (f=5) and “adaptation” (f=5). In addition, it is observed that trainers form metaphors with many concrete tools and abstract concepts such as “labour, gain, stress ball, serotonin, culture, umbrella, pen” regarding the concept of folk dances.As a result, it was determined that the most used metaphor for folk dances is “love” and that the category the most produced by the trainers is “happiness, excitement and energy aspect” and that the trainers have a positive perception in the metaphors produced by the “folk dances” concept.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.361
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