MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021760613 · doi:10.14237/ebl.3.2012.41

When Is a Fish Not a Fish? Questions Raised by a Nage Life-Form Category

2012· article· en· W2021760613 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory Forth

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnobiology Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxonFish <Actinopterygii>Freshwater fishBiologyEcologyTaxonomy (biology)IndonesianZoologyGeographyLinguisticsFisheryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Speakers of a Central-Malayo-Polynesian language, the Nage inhabit the central region of the eastern Indonesian island of Flores. Their folk taxonomy of animals (ana wa) contains three named life-form taxa, one of which is ika, fish. A review of component folk-generic taxa, however, reveals that Nage do not classify five kinds of freshwater fish as ‘fish’ (ika), even though they further apply ika to various marine fish (including sharks and rays) as well as to marine mammals. The article considers this peculiarity of Nage folk zoological taxonomy, and how it might affect an understanding of ika as denoting a ‘fish’ life-form taxon. The main conclusion is that the five excluded categories—distinguished largely on morphological and behavioural grounds, and conveniently designated as the ‘tebhu cluster’, after one of their members—are contrasted primarily with freshwater species which Nage do classify as ‘fish’ (ika). Specified by name as ika lowo (‘river fish’), these are further contrasted with another named folk-intermediate taxon of ‘marine fish’ (ika mesi). From this, it is argued that, as a life-form category, ika should be understood as implicitly including the five members of the ‘tebhu cluster’ as a third, albeit covert, folk-intermediate taxon.

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)0.007
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.051
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.242
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnobiology LettersSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207