The Cultural Worldview of Filipinos through Philippine-English Proverbs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proverbs are linguistic expressions of cultural truths about people’s values and beliefs handed down from generation to generation. Thus, for cross-cultural communicative competence and effective social interactions with Filipinos, understanding their proverbs would be essential for those working or interacting with Filipinos. This study investigated Filipino proverbs written in the Philippine English language to find the most prevalent proverb themes or topics that reflect the Filipino cultural worldview. The data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively, using content analysis. The quantitative results showed that Filipinos tend to believe in Heaven, Life and Death, and Evil, respectively. The proverbs also depicted the robust worth of family relations and friendships. Qualitative results showed that some Filipino proverbs have corresponding ones in British English whereas a number of them do not, for they have culture-specific denotations and/or connotations. Additionally, reconsidering the genres or topics of certain proverbs was recommended. The findings also led to implications to teaching English as an International Language, a Lingua Franca, or a Foreign Language, including cross-cultural communication.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".