MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016247210 · doi:10.3968/11533

The Nzema Perception of Abotane ‘Patience’ as Conveyed in Their Proverbial Expressions

2020· article· en· W3016247210 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammed Yakub

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatienceVirtuePerceptionTraitSocial psychologyPsychologySociologyEpistemologyPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper qualitatively describes the socio-cultural concept of patienceas portrayed in selected proverbs among the people of Nzema. The data were gathered from documented and oral sources. Where necessary, the discussion dwelled on natural and/or social occurrences to highlight the essence of the proverbs, and to enhance a better understanding of the Nzema worldview of patience. The paper revealed that the Nzema perceive patience as a crucial virtue ; and that, it is a potential behavioural trait required in achieving success in all human endeavours. It showed that the Nzema trust the efficacy of patience in mitigating conflicts and promoting peaceful societal co-existence. Interestingly, the study further found a couple of ‘counter-proverbs’ which demonstrate that, though patience is a productive prerequisite in achieving success, certain critical situations rather demand reactions in haste. These patience-related proverbs, as the discussions showcased, are largely cited in appropriate discourse contexts. Although not a comparative study, the paper suggests that the Nzema perception of patience may not largely depart from general conceptions and perceptions of patience.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207