Local knowledge of Komodo dragons (Varanus komodoensis) in north-central Flores Island (Indonesia) and implications for conservation of the species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Apart from Komodo and other small islands to the east, Varanus komodoensis is found near the western extremity of Flores Island and along the island’s north coast. How far east along this coast the species extends remains a question. Aims Ethnographic research undertaken in 2008 resulted in reports of Komodo dragons in the region of Nggolo Nio in north-central Flores Island. In 2018 and 2024, I returned to this region to collect further information on local knowledge and survival of the lizards. Methods Open-ended and directed questioning of informants was conducted in the national language, Bahasa Indonesia. Key results Eleven men and three women had observed V. komodoensis locally and provided descriptions of the lizards. The most recent sightings occurred during the last 5–10 years. Repeated sightings of a specimen that, unusually, had entered a settlement in the western part of the Nggolo Nio region occurred in 2017. This was observed by eight interviewees, including the three women. The species was described with reference to size, colour, vocalisation, diet, behaviour, habitat and relations with humans. All reports focused partly on differences between V. komodoensis and the smaller species Varanus salvator. Conclusions All accounts indicated that the same species was being described and that V. komodoensis survives in Nggolo Nio territory, though in small numbers that villagers stated had declined over the past two to three decades. Though ambiguous, the findings of camera trapping by herpetological researchers in 2014–2019 lend some support to these local claims. Implications The study shows how local knowledge of and attitudes toward rare animals can complement zoological study and contribute to conservation efforts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".