Perburuan Harimau di Bali pada Awal Abad XX Berdasarkan Sumber-Sumber Kolonial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Before falling into the hands of the Dutch colonial government in the early 20th century, Bali was quite a foreign and restricted territory for Europeans. This condition slowly changed when the colonial government conquered the local Balinese kingdoms. Tigers' existence in Bali was later known through the records created by Europeans who studied nature and the local community there. This study aims to show the link between the conquest of Bali by the colonial government and the extinction of the Bali tiger. Through historical research methods to examine the literature sources used, this study shows that the expansion of colonial government influence in Bali also played a role in the process of extinction of the Bali tiger. The growth of private plantations in areas home to tigers further increases the potential for conflict between tigers and humans. Similar to Javan and Sumatran tigers, Bali tigers are also often hunted because they disturb and threaten plantation activities, as well as because they are a prey object for sport-hunting enthusiasts. Extinction is inevitable as a consequence of continuous hunting activities for this species.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".