Globalization: In Terms of Teachers' Opinion and Metaphorical Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate teachers' opinion and metaphorical perceptions about globalization. In thispaper, phenomenology one of the qualitative research type was used. 61 teachers’ metaphorical perceptions aboutglobalization were collected and interviewed with 12 teachers about globalization in education. Teachers’metaphorical perceptions about globalization were determined by a space filled question (globalization is similar to...;because ...). A semi-structured interview form has been prepared by the researchers. The opinions of the teachers canbe summarized as teachers associate globalization with technology, especially with the internet. In general teachersmentioned that the effects of globalization in education are positive. Further teachers’ metaphorical perceptionsabout globalization summarized as follows; village, market, whirlpool, family, shopping, teapot, neighborhood,technology. Withal teachers’ reasons for analogy of the metaphors about globalization are grouped as; globalizationas a unifying of differences concept, globalization as a communication and interaction enhancer concept,globalization as a damaging concept and globalization as an indefinite 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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".