The Equivalence and Nonequivalence of Proverbs Across Cultures (Indonesian and English)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to examine whether or not proverbs, culturally-related medium of communication, are equivalent across cultures. The proverbs compared are derived from Indonesian and English cultures, as two distinct cultures. Fifteen Indonesian proverbs and fifteen English proverbs have been compared to find out whether or not they are equivalent in terms of meaning, linguistic structure and culture. The proverbs are collected from a list of well-known Indonesian and English proverbs. Since almost the thirty proverbs are expressed in metaphorical meaning and since Indonesian is still foreign to many international readers the literal meaning of lexical items found in the proverbs have been glossed in brackets followed by the explanation of the metaphorical meaning of the thirty proverbs. Ten Indonesian proverbs are found to be equivalent in terms of meaning to ten English proverbs. In terms of linguistic structure they are almost equivalent that is they are expressed mostly in the form of sentence. But they are different in the use of lexical items that constitute the proverbs. Five Indonesian proverbs are found to be nonequivalent to five of English in terms of meaning and the lexical items used to build the metaphor. Thus it is found out that fifteen Indonesian proverbs are equivalent to fifteen English proverbs and five Indonesian proverbs are found to be nonequivalent to five English proverbs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".