MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040814212 · doi:10.3968/11708

Nzema Proverbs and Sayings About Hard-Work, Perseverance and Self-Reliance

2020· article· en· W3040814212 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammed Yakub, William Appiagyei Osei

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLazinessJealousyIndigenousSociologyHatredWork (physics)PsychologyAestheticsVirtueSocial psychologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many African socio-cultural setting, people cherish the incorporation of proverbs in discourse; partly because speakers use proverbs as a ‘vehicle’ to conveniently convey their messages to targeted audience. Since proverbs are concealed with a lot of didactics and wisdom, speakers often depend on them to advise people against vices, while most acceptable behaviours are encouraged through proverbs. Among the Nzema, proverbs permeate almost every communicative interaction. This paper presents a qualitative descriptive analysis of Nzema proverbial expressions that advocate the virtue and essence of hard work and perseverance. It aims at examining the role of the Nzema proverb in ‘empowering’ people to work hard and to highlight the implications for ensuring a peaceful society. The paper fetches data from both oral and documented sources, as well as the researchers’ intuitive knowledge as indigenous speakers of Nzema. It found that the Nzema detest people who entertain the spirit of laziness/idleness, since this could result in indigence and could sometimes compel people to indulge in several immoral acts. The Nzema rather believe that hard work and mobility could place people at the pinnacle of the pedestal with regard to achievements in life. The implication, as the discussions showcased, is that industriousness is a necessary tool for ensuring self-sufficiency; thereby promoting a peaceful, cohesive and harmonious traditional society among the Nzema. The paper, thus, calls on all categories of people to be hard-working, so as to live independently to avoid undesirable attitudes like robbery, envy, jealousy, and hatred etc. to ensure the prevalence of peace and societal co-existence at all times.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.030
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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