‘Fish’ and ‘Non-Fish’ in Lio and Nage: Folk-Intermediates and Folk-Generics in the Fish Classification of Two Eastern Indonesian Peoples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on recent field research on Flores Island, this paper describes the classification of fish found among the Lio people. Formally, Lio fish taxonomy closely resembles that of the Nage of central Flores, discussed in a previous paper (Forth 2012), but differs insofar as several kinds of freshwater fish, all members of the Gobioidei, are subsumed in a named folk-intermediate taxon labeled mbo. Most attention is given to Lio names for folk-generics included in this intermediate. These correspond to the same species and genera included in a Nage folk-intermediate which, however, is unnamed. Moreover, Lio names for the component generics are clearly motivated by the same morphological and behavioral features as are reflected in Nage names for the same generics, yet the Lio names themselves are lexically quite different. These simultaneous classificatory similarities and nomenclatural differences are discussed with reference to the parts played by a common cultural heritage and natural discontinuity in the categorization of fish among these two ethno-linguistically related 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".