Penan Natives’ Discourse for and against Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modernization and capitalist penetration in developing countries have impacted rural communities differently. The Penan natives who are settled in the peripheral and isolated areas close to the forest are on the receiving end of development. Often authority-defined development discourse has been dominant but lay-defined discourse provides an alternative understanding and contestation to this discourse. This paper examines the development discourses of the Penan natives who have settled in the Belaga Area of Bintulu, Sarawak. The discourses entail the impact of development, as well as the natives’ view for and against development. A total of 25 heads of households from 6 villages were involved in this research that utilized the non-probability sampling technique. Data in this research was collected using the technique of in-depth interview and informal group discussion. The findings revealed that the Penan natives are displaced and excluded from mainstream market development and as such their exposure to the market ideals requires adaptation of skills, information, education and even welfare provision which are still distant to them. Findings also revealed that the Penans are for development that entails sustaining their existing ecological relationship, with adequate provision of amenities and infrastructural development such as long houses, schools, recreational areas, roads, and other utilities. However, they are against development that disrupts their livelihood and habitat, for example those involving activities such as logging, oil palm plantation and major infrastructural projects. Contrasting worldviews held by the Penan natives for a sufficiency and ecological model of development can provide alternative views to mainstream development discourse.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".