MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918555657 · doi:10.5430/elr.v8n1p20

Niedzwiedzia Przysluga?Bear’s Favor? Hidden Garden behind the Concrete Proverbs: Cognitive-Semantic Analysis of Proverbs in Persian, Polish and Spanish

2019· article· en· W2918555657 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rajdeep Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoralityThe ImaginaryPersianOrder (exchange)Value (mathematics)SociologyCognitionAestheticsPsychologyEpistemologyLinguisticsPhilosophyComputer sciencePsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proverbs help us understand how the society works at large and what are the main concerns regarding the environment, people-to-people exchange and notions of liberty, freedom and values. In some cultures such as the Iranian one, the way one uses proverbs depends on the generation one finds herself in. Generation-gap provides opportunity to transfer some abstract and complicated concepts, not available in modern life, through the use of proverbs. From childhood, by hearing proverbs from parents and grand-parents, children begin grasping some important national and even religious concepts. In order to represent a rather international, holistic view and not language-specific, we analyzed further Polish, French and Spanish proverbs, whenever deemed necessary. The present paper through cognitive-semantic and content analysis aims to reveal the implied systems of value, ethics and morality realized through proverbs. The results clearly indicate that proverbs cover different systems of values through elements such as artifacts, animals, human body parts and even imaginary, nature-derived elements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Linguistics ResearchSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207