Metaphors on the Concepts of “Reading” and “Listening” Created by the Secondary School Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to examine the metaphors on the concepts of reading and listening of the secondary school students and is based on phenomenology. 390 randomly selected secondary school students participated in this study in the 2016–2017 academic year in Turkey. The study includes all the grades (5, 6, 7, & 8th) at the secondary school level. “Reading is like ..................., because .....................”, “Listening is like ..............., because ..................” were the two sentences given to the students and they were asked to fill in the blanks. The data were analyzed by the content analysis. The students created 385 metaphors about the concept of reading and 329 metaphors about the concept of listening. Metaphors on the concept of reading were divided into 11 categories: A source of knowledge/learning, development, necessity, imagination, life, finding peace, sincerity, boredom/suffocation, eternity, guidance, enjoyment. Metaphors on the concept of listening were divided into 9 categories: A source of knowledge/learning, necessity, imagination, life, finding peace, communication, boredom, guidance, enjoyment. In this research, metaphors were used to reveal the thoughts of secondary school students on the concepts of reading and listening.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".