Metaphorical Perceptions of Folk Dances Trainers Regarding the Concept of Folk Dances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".