MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067524886 · doi:10.5296/ijssr.v3i1.6886

‘Fishantry as a social domain’: Empirical observations from Bangladesh (Part 2)

2015· article· en· W2067524886 on OpenAlexafffund
Apurba Krishna Deb, C. Emdad Haque

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Science Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Manitoba
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Chittagong
KeywordsDialecticPoliticsDomain (mathematical analysis)SociologyScope (computer science)Context (archaeology)BENGALEpistemologySocial sciencePolitical scienceGeographyLawComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, part two of a comprehensive research, contributes to the debate why fishantry as a social domain deserves separate analytical treatment by way of providing context-specific substantiations and insights from two farming and two fishing villages located in the floodplain and coastal ecosystems of Bangladesh. Part one of the series dealt with the flawed anatomy of the peasantry as a conceptual domain, relegation of fishers in the anthropological and political theorizing and development discourse, and the theoretical debates in favour of a separate taxonomical domain for fishers. This article focuses on the comparative aspects between peasantry and fishantry with further insights concerning the internal differentiation within fishantry. Grounding on the analyses of these two distinct senses of representations and the dialectical interplay between peasantry and fishantry, we argue that in view of changing social and anthropological fields in this new era of realignment, the dynamic dimensions of identities, scope of reconceptualization of social domains, and internally differentiated classes of rural Bengal deserve new attention. There is also a critical need for more thoughts on modifying macro-level policies in favour of fishantry.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Social Science ResearchSame topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207