Land-sea Amphibiousness: A Study of Islandness in China’s Fringing Island Societies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Islandness serves as a pivotal theoretical concept in island studies, essential for understanding the distinctiveness and significance of islands. It should not be reduced to a universal or static abstraction of common insular traits; rather, it embodies internal tensions and diversity. A comprehensive grasp of islandness requires deep engagement with varied island types across regions, examining local social developments and historical contexts to apprehend the core and essence of island societies, while situating islands within their broader regional contexts to understand their relationships with surrounding mainlands and seas. Through long-term ethnographic fieldwork on Tao Island, located off China’s eastern coast, this study reveals how both mainland agrarian traditions, represented by land, and maritime influences collectively shape fringing island societies. Land reclamation acted as a catalyst for Tao Island’s social formation while fostering internal and external solidarity. When natural disasters necessitated livelihood adaptation, village cadres led the community in embracing mariculture—an integration of land and sea—enabling residents to overcome crisis. The Tao Island case exemplifies the dual terrestrial-maritime character of fringing island societies, which this article conceptualizes as ‘land-sea amphibiousness’. This conclusion arises not from a mainland-centric perspective, but from empirical engagement with the island’s social realities. Carefully examining the history and social transformations of island societies can thus advance renewed critical reflections on islandness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".