Use of Prohibited Fishing-Tackles and Techniques in Fishing for Commercially Valuable Fish among the Tatars of the Middle Irtysh Region in the First Quarter of the 21st Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the ethnographic fieldwork and written sources of the 19th century, this study examines the prohibited fishing tackles and their use in fishing commercially valuable fish on the Irtysh River by the Tatars in the present-day Omsk Region. Information on this type of fishing from the second half of the 19th century to the first quarter of the 21st century is overviewed, and currently used prohibited fishing tackles (trotlines, self-activating traps, drifting sink nets, and two panel trammel nets), their configuration, setting methods, and specific aspects of their use are described. The limited written evidence suggests that fishing for commercially valuable fish might not have been very important for most Tatars and Bokharans in the second half of the 19th century. According to informants and authors’ personal observations, catching sterlet, sturgeon, and nelma (Siberian white salmon) played a significant role in the life support of the Tatars in Irtysh villages from the mid 20th century to the early 21st century. It was an important source of income, especially in the post-perestroika period. The most effective fishing gear included trotlines, self-activating traps, two panel trammel nets, and drifting sink nets. Currently, drifting sink nets and self-activating traps are most commonly used. Research shows that in the recent past, the Tatars in the Middle Irtysh region actively used homemade fishing tackles made from readily available materials. Knowledge of natural conditions and thorough study of fish behavior and life allowed them to efficiently obtain the necessary amount of food using simple fishing tackles.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".