‘Beyond the Lens of Peasantry’: Theoretical Basis of ‘Fishantry’ as a Distinct Social Domain (Part 1)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, fishers have been embodied among rural primary producers, and they have been largely overlooked in efforts of anthropological and political theorizing of the peasantry. This article, which is the first part of a study, takes up the challenge to analyze the theoretical basis and argues in favour of why fishers do deserve a separate analytical treatment. We observed that, despite some commonalities, interactions, and dependencies between fishers and peasants as rural inhabitants and professional groups, fishers exhibit distinct characteristics in terms of their socio-political dimension, culture, Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), production relations, adoption of technology, local institutions, and resource governance. We, therefore, assert fishantry as a distinct social domain that deserves a separate analytical framework relative to peasantry. Empirically, the attributes of fishantry are more visible in small-scale fisheries in developing or least-developed societies. In part two of this study, which will be published in the next issue, we present the analysis pertinent to the independent existence and the social relations of fishers in the fishing communities in Bangladesh. We envision that manifestations of a fishantry theoretical framework would be reflected in the policy domain as designated resources and programs that would aim for the sustainable management of fisheries resources and the well-being of the user groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".