Acculturation Chinese Symbol on Madura Batik Motif
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study has two chief purposes. Firstly, to introduce the Madurese Batik from Indonesia which has not yet been widely studied, and secondly, to show the acculturation of the Chinese culture in the motif of Madurese Batik. Research method employed in this study was descriptive qualitative, because our topic involves cultural and humanity sciences. The writers interview batik makers from the towns of Pamekasan, Tanjung Bumi, Sumenep, and Sampang, as research informants. We take two batik makers as representatives of each town. The four towns are selected because those towns are the centers of batik in Madura. To crosscheck the information obtained from the batik makers, also interview two collectors of Madurese batik who have good knowledge of Madurese batik. The data from the interviews and the photographic documentation of Madurese batiks are sorted and then analyzed by relating them to the theories about Madurese culture, acculturation process, and Chinese culture. The discussions and conclusions of the analyses correspond with the hypotheses proposed at the beginning of the study, which states that there are acculturations of the symbols on Madurese Batik motifs, which can be seen in the paintings of phoenix, butterfly, fish, bamboo trees on the batik, and that the acculturation process occurs naturally without conscious knowledge of the Madurese.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".