MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012249708 · doi:10.1177/1473325020910469

The power of the tongue: Inherent labeling of persons with disabilities in proverbs of the Akan people of Ghana

2020· article· en· W3012249708 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Social Work · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Inclusion–exclusion principlePower (physics)PsychologySociologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proverbs are an important feature of any language worldwide. In Africa, for instance, people in their everyday conversations use proverbs to add special effects and flavour. However, the inclusion of proverbs in speech goes beyond mere decoration. As a repository of African knowledge and culture, proverbs serve as a medium for educating present and future generations about society’s cultural values, beliefs, and ethics. In this powerful role, proverbs may have significant effects on speakers and their listeners. While these effects may be positive, in terms of their references to certain groups of people, proverbs may have telling effects. In this paper, we examined samples of Ghanaian Akan proverbs on mental and physical disabilities and their meanings, using critical discourse analysis and guided by labeling theory. We conclude that Akan proverbs predominantly label people with disabilities negatively, thereby leading to their stigmatization, marginalization, and exclusion. We recommend using proverbs with negative connotations for people with disabilities as a tool to educate society on how not to treat people with disabilities.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.307 · 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