Protection, policies, prisoners and prosecutions linked to nautilus shells in traditional handicrafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the 1980s a novel handicraft was established in the city of Mataram on the island of Lombok, Indonesia, using nautilus shells inlays in wooden objects and furniture. The ‘traditional’ motives initially were simple but over time became very complex resulting in furniture sets containing 1000s of shell pieces requiring weeks to complete. This industry expanded and dozens of shops and wholesale traders produce, sell and export handicrafts and furniture. The industry developed without considering national legislation and international agreements; nautilus is a protected species and export requires CITES permits. Local governments promote nautilus shells inlay handicrafts and furniture as ‘traditional and uniquely Lombok’ to domestic and international buyers. The West Lombok penitentiary runs a rehabilitation project for prisoners, whereby inmates are taught the art of making nautilus shell inlay handicrafts and furniture. The penitentiary is now one of its larger producers. Surveys in 2022 to 2025 reveal widespread availability of these handicrafts and furniture; we estimate that annually ~10,000 chambered nautilus shells are needed to meet the demand. Shops, including ones at international airports, offer these handicrafts to international tourists, and traders showed evidence of (illegal) export of furniture to Europe and the USA. The sale of these types of handicrafts, including their export, continues with impunity, and there is no evidence of confiscations, arrests or prosecution for trading protected nautilus shells in this manner. Reflecting on our observations it is evident that national legal protection and international trade regulations are in direct conflict with local policies and sale promotions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".